The Gormogons

Remaining Democrat Candidates debate the pressing issues…oh wait, no they didn’t.

Mrs. GorT and GorT watched the entire Democrat Debate last night on NBC. I can’t tell you how many times one of us was snickering or outright laughing and making a comment like, “this is pure entertainment gold.” Keep in mind, this is the ninth of twelve Democrat Debates and, unless you avoid the media and social media, you’ve probably heard what a mess it was. Let me break it down from my perspective.

We need to put this in context – these are six candidates who are vying for the nomination to run for the office of the President. The debate was held on primetime television on NBC with five moderators. In the end, I think anyone objectively watching it will be unable to find a President in that group.

First, if I were any part of the Democrat National Committee, I’d ban future debates from the NBC family. The moderators, particularly Lester Holt and Chuck Todd could not control the format at all even given that all of the candidates couldn’t abide by the rules laid out. This, in itself, should be telling about the candidates that they couldn’t follow simple debate rules. Instead, we got multiple occasions with at least two or three of the candidates arguing at each other (yes, at not with) and no one could make out what was being said or discussed. Candidates veered way off course from the questions asked with little to no course correction by the moderators. And finally, the NBC moderator questions rarely, if at all, drew out a discussion on substantive topics but rather focused on some of the candidates’ potentially problematic histories. Glaringly missing were any prods into Warren’s abuse of race to benefit herself, Buttigieg’s relative lack of experience at scale, Biden’s Ukrainian dealings and riding of Obama’s coattails, and Klobuchar’s temperment. Instead, it was focused on Sander’s socialism and Bloomberg’s various problems (stop-and-frisk, his wealth, and his possible mistreatment of women). The debate completely lacked any foreign diplomacy discussion save for a discussion around Klobuchar’s failure to remember the name of the president of Mexico. The brief section on climate change lacked any real substance and no challenge by any of the moderators. For example, the disposal of aging wind turbine blades, the environmental impact of the materials needed to build wind and solar farms, the explicit exclusion of nuclear power from the New Green Deal – all would have been beneficial areas to explore. And there were more discussions around “passing” various laws – many from the Senators (past and present) on the stage who sit (or sat) in Congress were this actually gets done*

I’d offer a winners and losers section to this post but I don’t think any candidate won that debate. I don’t think any of them carried themselves in a presidential manner. None of the distinguished themselves. Let’s take a look:

Elizabeth Warren spoke the most during the debate and likely interrupted the most. This was a change and she was more active in her participation but not in a good way (at least to me) as she was stepping on opponent’s times and cluttering the discussion. She had about a full minute more than any other candidate** She went after every other candidate on a range of issues and had some obviously planned canned quips to use. When it came time for her to speak about her plans, she came off as the grade school kid vying for class president promising longer recess, free pizza lunches, and no-homework Fridays. She claims that her 2¢ wealth tax would pay for free college, preschool, etc. etc. with a serious pander to minority voters on this.

Joe Biden, as Mrs. GorT observed, basically had one answer last night: “I’m the only one on stage who has done [insert topic]” Seriously, at least four times he used that crutch. Apparently, the Obama administration achieved nothing without Joe Biden. Biden didn’t engage on a lot and when he did, I would argue, he didn’t look good. He appeared to be struggling to remember what he wanted or needed to say. Along with Bloomberg, he had one of the two lowest speaking times – more than 3 minutes less than Warren.

Pete Buttigieg was clam and forward-looking but continues to struggle with a lack of experience at scale. He tried defending against that line of attack by Sen Klobuchar saying that the debate stage and being a mayor in middle America is still “an arena” but he isn’t dealing with the complexities and scale that a Congressional member has had to navigate. While potentially inspiring, Buttigieg did not distinguish himself policy-wise or in other areas. And he needs to fire his stylist for allowing him to go out half-shaven for the debate. It’s not No-Shave-November anymore, Pete, and the facial hair stubble isn’t working.

Amy Klobuchar tried really hard to make this about putting a woman in the White House. She was second to Warren in total talk time. Every reference to what a President could do was “she” and on multiple occasions was very defensively making the case that she has the experience and know-how to be the President. It didn’t feel inviting or genuine but rather like a petulant adolescent stomping their feet arguing with mom and dad as to why it isn’t fair that she can’t stay out past 11pm on a school night. Apparently, she’s been the lead senator on a crap-ton of bills but I’m not sure that any of them really did much to address the top issues like immigration reform, environmental policies, taxes, etc.

Bernie Sanders is back to the yelling with the weird, jabbing hand gestures – gives me the shivers. Bloomberg delivered a good shot at Bernie over being a millionaire and owning three homes. Let’s put this in context with some data: as of 2017, 9.26 million Americans live in a household that owns a second home. This is down from ten years prior. Another statistic puts it around 4% of the country owns a second home. I’d guess that the percentage of three-party owners is 1% or less. Sanders admitted that he would levy an additional payroll tax – a tax that hits any working American – to help pay for his Medicare For All plan. Buttigieg did get in a good dig on Bernie saying that “ordinary Americans [feel] like leaders [aren’t] speaking to them, then I think that turning to someone like Mayor Bloomberg, who thinks he can buy this election, is no better a way to succeed than turning to somebody like Senator Sanders who wants to burn the house down”

And then there was Mike Bloomberg. I don’t think Bloomberg fared very well in this outing. He’s avoided getting beat up in eight previous debates and took a beating last night by his opponents over his wealth, his past policies – again, specifically stop-and-frisk, and a new attack on his past treatment of women and the NDAs he has with some. I think he attempted to rise above those attacks but he couldn’t. NBC directly targeted him through their line of questions. And simplifying the office of the President to a “manager” didn’t help his case. He talked the least and I think came off as nervous and unprepared for the attacks.

Liberal friends and relatives are on social media almost begging for the Democrat candidates not to rip each other apart as they try to focus on one thing – get Trump out of office. I don’t think NBC or the six remaining candidates did anything to help that. In fact, they probably armed Trump’s campaign staff with plenty of material. As one of our followers on Twitter tweeted, “It’s clear that Trump won that debate”

* Holy crap, we need to really look at our Civics curriculum in our schools. Even one of the local news stations had the following in a “can you pass a civics test” segment: “Who was President during the Great Depression and WWII?” That’s a history question not a civics question.

Pictured: ‘Puter and all sane people wondering WTAF is going on with the feminist nutjob losing her ever-loving mind in the background. And on the hallowed pages of America’s go-to purveyors of the finest leftist propaganda, the NYT.

‘Puter’s back. He had to go all the way down to the Leaping Peacock to get a fresh handle of scotch. We had more scotch yesterday, but Czar got an early start on celebrating Czars Day and drank the Castle’s last three casks of scotch.*

In Part Uno of this piece, ‘Puter introduced you to Kimberly Probolus, the woman whose heartfelt and totally not ideological cri de coeur shamed the NYT into instituting sex-based quotas on its daily letters page. Quotas were required in order to guarantee the letters page is vajjed-up to the appropriate level, you see.**

Since we have previously established Ms. Probolus is a godless commie ideologue, we may now move on to her most recent letter, a letter celebrating her victory over meritocracy and by extension, Whitey T. Mann, that oppressive bastard.

Ms. Probolus regales us with a personal story in her letter’s opening. As all good academics know, anecdotes are totally reliable data points and we shouldn’t question in the back of our heads whether she made the entire thing up because it’s too good to check.

In short, Ms. Probolus says this summer she was introduced to a man at a party as “the woman who wrote the letter to The New York Times about why not enough women write letters to the editor.” She claims the man proceeded to talk about why women don’t write letters to the editor and about the NYT’s hot new vaj-quota system. She tells him again she’s the letter’s author. He then understands and feels bad.

Ms. Probolus claims “the man I encountered was not the least bit arrogant, displaying a boyish giddiness toward feminism. And yet, he could not hear the small blond woman standing right in front of him.” You would be wrong to think this sounds totally made up because it is most assuredly totally not made up.

From this anecdote, Ms. Probolus gets to her real issue.

But it’s not enough to ask women to speak up: to write more letters, to raise our voices, to “lean in.” The problem is not that women aren’t speaking up. As far back as ancient Greece — when Cassandra warned the Trojans about that giant wooden horse — women have been speaking loudly and clearly. The problem is that men aren’t listening.

You see, it’s not enough that the NYT now has ill-considered quotas which force it to ignore merit in favor of genitalia. Now we are called on to force only one of the sexes to do the bidding of the other sex. Men must be made to communicate with women in the style and manner which women would like, screw them and their preferences. She goes on down Man Bashing Lane in her SJW coupe at 137 miles per hour. Surely this will end well!

Male readers of The New York Times, this is about you. You who call yourselves feminists and attend women’s marches. You who coach your daughters’ soccer teams. Yes, you are trying, but I’m struck by how spectacularly so many of you continue to fail at listening, this most basic of human skills.

It’s not women, you see. And hey, it’s sure nice that you emasculated beta male feminist are coaching your daughters and parroting the bullshit gospel of feminism. Unless you listen to women in exactly the way Ms. Probolus wants you to listen, you must be named and shamed. It’s completely impossible that Ms. Probolus has nothing of interest to say to men and thus they ignore her. Or perhaps that her hectoring and male-bashing so turns off even the progressive beta male manjina-endowed caucus that they ignore her assuming its more of the same horseshit. These thoughts never occur to her.

But how are we men to be reeducated? Will there be death camps and cattle prods and chicks in hot leather jumpsuits and no underwear? Read on.

Fortunately, there are practical strategies to help men become both better listeners and more active listeners. First, to be a good listener, stop talking. You cannot listen to her story and be present for her if you’re too busy thinking about yourself or your next brilliant comment. Second, active listening means hearing the words women are saying and taking them at face value, even if those words contradict your prior assumptions or your own agenda. Third, being an active listener means asking questions.

Huh. Let ‘Puter see if he groks your ladywords:

1. STFU. Don’t think about anything other than the line of shit she’s about to attempt to cram down your throat.

2. STFU and obey women. Jettison your own beliefs and adopt hers unquestioningly. Don’t interrupt to point out how stupid her positions are.

3. After you’ve done 1 and 2, you may speak but only to ask questions approved in advance by Ms. Probolus.

That seems about right, doesn’t it? Man, is ‘Puter smart or what? What’s next, O Great Oracle of Feminist Doctrine?

Women do not speak with one voice. We don’t all want the same things, which is why you need to ask women what they want and then respect their opinions, even, and most especially, if it means ceding some of your own power in any given situation. Practicing feminist listening is something you can start right now. Look up from your paper or screen and ask the woman across from you, “How can I be a better listener?” Listen to her, and do what she says.

Alright. Apparently, the only approved question is, “What do you want?” And the only approved response is “Yes, dear. Right away.” Give up all your power because women say so. Put her in control of your thoughts, words, and deeds. It’s interesting that this noted feminist is creating a world for men that closely resembles the world women existed in back in the 1940s. Keep quiet, look pretty, her opinions are your opinions, treat her as God. ‘Puter wonders when Ms. Probolus is going to get around to advocate beating your man if he dares get uppity.

After presenting her perfect plan for ruining male-female interaction and destroying all heterosexual relationships for a generation, could there be anything left to accomplish for our fearless Comrade Probolus? O ye of little faith. You bet there is.

This ask may seem small, but listening must be the first step toward systemic change. Members of Congress should listen to the opinions of their female constituents and prioritize the legislation that they ask for. Organizations should listen to their female employees about what policies would be most helpful to support their personal and professional flourishing, and then take active steps to enact those policies.

Wow. This is mind-blowing, world-altering work right here! How could ‘Puter have been so simple? It’s so apparent to ‘Puter now that all animals are equal, but female animals are more equal than others! Congress should prioritize women’s wishes above all other matters before them. Why? Because Ms. Probolus says so. After all, women are more equal than men.

Corporations should ignore shareholders and profits, instead turning the workplace over to women to run according to their whims. Need a menstrual day off? Sure, no problem! How about 18 years of paid leave to raise your family? Sure! No problem! After all, women are more equal than men.

“There can’t be any problems left for Ms. Probolus to solve,” you think to yourself. You’d be wrong. Follow me down the rabbit hole into the diseased, fascistic mind of a dedicated feminist.

Social media should regulate online platforms to safeguard women against harassment and to ensure that their voices are heard. Our legal system must figure out how it can listen to women, particularly in cases of rape. And it needs to respond to women whose identities exist at the intersection, listening to the nuances of what it means to be injured because one is both a woman and black, a woman and queer. Listening will not solve inequality. But progress is impossible if men can’t hear women.

Men’s free speech? F*ck it. Stupid men just abuse it anyway. Let’s deplatform and cancel the bastards! We’re going to force people to pay attention to women online! Marketplaces and robust debates are for chumps! Men have two options. First, men can accept us feminists cramming our program down their subjugated throats (which is totally not mind-raping, you sexist hater!). Or second, men can be destroyed. See? We women are offering you men choice. You get to pick!

And rights of the accused? Fuck ‘em. Due process and the presumption of innocence are archaic concepts. Show trials with predetermined outcomes are where it’s at! China and Russia are models of efficiency! Can’t you see how their justice systems benefit women? We need to replicate those here, run solely by women, of course.

Did Ms. Probolus mention men will be required to accept any old thing the LGBTQI+ community wants to foist on them, no matter how delusional or harmful? She didn’t? Well, guess what, dickheads? Either you accept completely irrational, made up shit, including gender reassignment hormone therapy for 5 year olds or you’ll be liquidated. Erm, reeducated. Definitely reeducated. Forget the whole liquidated thing.

All you idiots have to do is listen – really listen – to Ms. Probolus and she will usher in a workers’ paradise!

Do you wonder what Ms. Probolus’ capper to her totally-not-insane-plan-for-world-domination-and-oppression-of-men is? Boy, ‘Puter sure does!

Identifying and vilifying hateful, sexist men is easy. It’s a lot harder to tell the men in our lives who support us and love us unconditionally that they, too, are part of the problem. I hope that they will listen, and I hope that they will change. If The New York Times can do it, perhaps its male readers can, too.

Yay! After Ms. Probolus and her feminist death squads liquidate reeducate all the male haters and losers, it’ll be easier to force the weak beta men to obey. It’s amazing what the threat of death reeducation can accomplish!

And women? Do women have any responsibility here? Newp. Not a one. Ms. Probolus assures us that it’s all men’s fault. Women bear no responsibility for any of their actions or beliefs.

Now listen up, Ms. Probolus. ‘Puter’s got a brief response to your well thought out, totally not ripped right out of Stalin’s handbook plan. Are you ready? I want to make sure you’re listening – really listening – to what I’m about to say.

You can take your hateful, totalitarian agenda and fuck right the fuck off, you un-American bitch.

* We tell Czar that Presidents Day is Czars Day since he hates constitutional republics and loves brutal dictatorships (and himself). It’s easier than listening to Czar rant for the entire weekend about burying America while pounding his shoe on the table.

** ‘Puter does not fully (or even partially) understand what an appropriate amount of vajjing-up would be for the NYT’s daily letters page. Is there a Vaj-o-meter which measures it? So many questions.

The NYT editors working diligently on their next big idea: requiring the electoral college to be populated solely by members of the NYT editorial board.

Over the weekend, ‘Puter sat down and read the Sunday New York Times.* In the Sunday Review section, the editors wrote a love-letter to women who write letters to the editor titled “Women, Please Speak Out.”

‘Puter considered synopsizing the letter but decided his minions couldn’t fully understand ‘Puter’s larger point without getting a sense of the utter raft of steaming, po-mo, SJW horseshit the NYT editors have become. Let’s take a gander.

A year ago, prodded by a reader who wrote eloquently about how women were underrepresented on the letters page of The Times, we started the Women’s Project, aiming to correct that imbalance and better reflect the diversity in society. We committed ourselves to work toward a goal of gender parity and to report on our progress in February 2020.

Barf. Lazy writing written for lazy people who are unable to think beyond nonsensical tropes media force-feeds them. Read on, if you dare.

For the last year, we have tracked and entered into a spreadsheet the gender of every writer we’ve published on the daily letters page. As of today, the tally is 43 percent women, 57 percent men — numbers that have remained remarkably constant for several months. While we do not have exact data from previous years, we do know that there are now far more women on the page than in the past.

We have also done spot tallies of the much larger number of submissions. There the percentage (when a writer’s gender can be determined) is about 25 to 30 percent women, about the same as a year ago, before the project started.

Got it? The NYT editors decided the daily letters page needed to be vaginaed up, filling a gaping void so to speak. Naturally, the editors instituted a quota just like the communist sympathizers they are.** Penises need not apply. Make letters snatch-tastic again. Letters are cooter-iffic!

On we go, dear minions, voyaging ever-deeper into the fever swamps of “elite” media minds where normal predilections and preferences of the sexes are prima facie evidence of societal oppression of women.

Over all, though, we’re not satisfied yet. While there was a small uptick in letters from women right after we announced the project, we still sometimes find ourselves struggling to ensure that women’s voices are heard on a wide variety of topics.

At the project’s one-year mark, we’re reaffirming our commitment to working to reach gender parity. But what was reinforced by this project is that our letters pages are richer for this new collection of voices — and it compels us to broaden our efforts further, to ensure that we are publishing a range of letters from an even more diverse pool of writers going forward.

The NYT’s editors placed a daily burjina quota on the letters page but women didn’t respond! Women are too stupid to realize they’re oppressed by white, male bigots! How dare women not validate the NYT editors’ pet theory! Do women not realize that they’re obligated to resist Not-Our-President Orangemanbad by whining (two times, real hard) on the NYT’s daily letters page?***

The NYT’s policy of daily letter set asides for women is not only insulting to women, it’s self-destructive.

It’s insulting to women because it tells women they’re not good enough to get their letters published without super-woke media elites putting their thumbs on the scale. It’s the editors’ soft bigotry of low expectations for women writ large.

It’s self-destructive because it destroys the NYT’s (currently undeserved) reputation for being a top-quality news and opinion outlet, America’s alleged newspaper of record. It’s the editors admitting they’re dumbing down the quality of its daily letters page by selecting on the basis of genitalia rather than the quality of the submission.

If the NYT admits it lowers its allegedly high standards for submitted letters to publish to push its political agenda (the aggressive enbewbification of letters to the editor), has it also lowered its standards for reporters and reporting? Does the NYT’s political agenda bias its coverage of events to the point that it is no longer a reliable source of facts? Are readers supposed to assume that everything in the NYT is false because its reporters aren’t hired for competence but rather because they check some race, sex, or sexual preference box somewhere in some HR executive’s tiny little reptilian brain?

Trump hasn’t destroyed media as media are wont to claim. Trump’s simply pulled back the curtain to reveal the decades-long rot and decay media’s inflicted on itself.

* Shut up. It’s Mrs. P’s subscription, not mine. ‘Puter subscribes to the totally awesome Wall Street Journal like all good white male oppressors. Now get that cute ass back in the kitchen and make ‘Puter a sammich, Sugar Britches. ‘Puter likes to watch you walk away. While you’re at it, drop a few pounds, put on a shorter skirt, lose the bra, and put on a skin-tight sweater, Tits McGee.

** The New York Times has still not returned the Pulitzer it won for the work of Walter Duranty who history showed (and the NYT likely knew at the time) used his articles on the Soviet Union-occupied Ukraine to cover up Stalin’s starvation of millions of Ukrainians (aka, Holodomor). Thus, “communist sympathizers” is a well-deserved (and earned) moniker.

*** The NYT daily letters page is what you would get if you took the zanier, more conspiracy theory-er moments of Morning Joe and The View and wrote them down. Since Trump’s election it’s been a nonstop circle-jerk of crybullies who hate the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump over Meemaw Winebox.

“As you read, your chest tightens and a sense of dread washes over you, radiating out from your heart. You feel anxious, afraid and intensely guilty.”

There’s only one way to get rid of hippies. It involves a Colorado fourth-grader and a giant screw-nosed boring machine.

What’s this quote about? Biopsy results? Your 401k after an inevitable downturn? Your kid’s most recent report card? Nope. Read on.

“Just this morning, you drove a gasoline-powered car to work. You ate beef for lunch. You booked a flight, turned on the heat, forgot your reusable grocery bags at home. This is your fault.”

In her NYT opinion piece, Emma Marris* irrationally believes much of the American public is angst-ridden and self-blaming over the state of the Earth’s climate. To believe this, one must also believe two predicates: (1) climate change in the near term will make Earth uninhabitable and (2) all Americans are as deluded and as fragile as the author and other coastal elites.

Well, ‘Puter for one is absolutely anxious, afraid, and intensely guilty that he hadn’t yet considered that he should be anxious, afraid, and intensely guilty about climate change. What’s ‘Puter to do?!? OH NOES, TEH AYNGST IZ TEH OVARWELLMIN MEEEEE!!!

But our author is nothing but helpful. She reassures us:

“As an environmental writer, I’m often asked for guidance on coping with climate change. I have thoughts. Even better, I have a five-point plan to manage the psychological toll of living with climate change and to become part of the solution.”

First, “[a]s an environmental writer” could’ve just as easily been written “as a giant douchenozzle with totalitarian tendencies and irrational beliefs” and been equally correct.

Second, thank God for Ms. Marris. Imagine what we’d have had to do if not for an environmental writer (whatever the heck that means) helpfully coming up with a five-point plan to solve a non-problem, just like leftist heroes Elizabeth Warren and Josef Stalin. Wait. Stalin and his merry band of Soviet murderers had five-year plans. Close enough.

Anyhoo, what does Ms. Marris’ five-point plan entail? As one would suspect from an “environmental writer,” a whole assload of government control and reduced freedoms. Here’s Ms. Marris’ five points with some helpful ‘Puter commentary:

1. Ditch the shame.

“Yes, our daily lives are undoubtedly contributing to climate change. But that’s because the rich and powerful have constructed systems that make it nearly impossible to live lightly on the earth. Our economic systems require most adults to work ….”

It’s not your fault because big, bad one-percenters made it impossible for you not to pollute. Clearly, the solution is to exterminate the one-percenters to usher in a global green Utopia. It’s not your fault. The game is rigged. You’re programmed to believe that your consumption is the problem.

“It turns eco-saints against eco-sinners, who are really just fellow victims.” It’s not just you who are a victim. Everyone you know, everyone you meet, everyone ever everywhere is a victim! “As long as we are competing for the title of ‘greener than thou,’ or are paralyzed by shame, we aren’t fighting the powerful companies and governments that are the real problem.”

FITE TEH POWAR!! STIK IT 2 DA MANN!! EET THA RITCH!!! FREE BLEEDIN IZ KEWL!!!! Um, that last one, ‘Puter got a bit carried away. Sorry.

Also, it’s totes criminal that you’re required to work to earn a living. People should just give you free crap because Oregon and stuff. Say, where’d ‘Puter leave his bong? Must’ve left it in my Portland-based sweat lodge which is just a refrigerator box filled with nekkid, greasy, bearded homeless guys.

2. Focus on systems, not yourself.

Ms. Marris states we cannot reduce our climate change contributions to zero and even if we could it would eat all our time, “leaving us little time or energy for pushing for the systemic changes we need.” ‘Puter would’ve gone with “big, structural change” as an homage to hard-Left’s secular saint Sen. Liz Warren, noted Native American spokes-squaw.

Ms. Marris shares that she’s decided to fight the system by fighting against a natural gas pipeline, liquefaction facility, and LNG terminal in her home state of Oregon.** She states 42,000 people submitted comments to a state agency requesting it deny the necessary permits. This means that if the permits are denied, each person, according to Marris, gets climate indulgences equal to one-forty-two-thousandth of the facility’s emissions which would have occurred, about 876 metric tons per person. This compares to the average annual per person emissions of 16 metric tons.

I’d be interested to know if these 42,000 people also get credit for the hundreds if not thousands of lost jobs in Oregon and elsewhere by putting the kibosh on a valuable economic enhancement. And if we’re going to do the math, Ms. Marris should also include the increased emissions for coal and wood burning overseas (likely in China and India) where the LNG would have been exported, reducing the need to burn dirtier fossil fuels. Want to bet preventing the LNG export terminal’s construction is a net emissions increase?

The author’s point, she helpfully tells us, is:

“that the climate crisis is not going to be solved by personal sacrifice. It will be solved by electing the right people, passing the right laws, drafting the right regulations, signing the right treaties — and respecting those treaties already signed, particularly with indigenous nations. It will be solved by holding the companies and people who have made billions off our shared atmosphere to account.”

So elect hard-Left enviroweenies, trust in other countries to run our economy for the good of Gaia, and surrender your freedoms to those who know better than you (Ms. Marris’ compatriots, natch).

That’s a formula for success right there. It’s historically proven to work well in such paradises as the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Venezuela, and California.

3. Join an effective group.

First, there’s no such thing as an effective group. Second, joining a group accomplishes nothing. Ms. Marris cites several groups, none of which seem to have accomplished much of anything except offering a place for puffed-up leftist egos to go and talk to like-minded climate change induced dementia patients in a never-ending echo chamber.

The Swedish Climate Meatball is mentioned. ‘Puter did not feel it necessary to point out the absurdity in Ms. Marris’ claim that exploitation of an autistic child is a good thing because muh climate.

“Climate change is linked to income inequality and injustice, so if your passion is fighting for racial justice, the rights of the poor, or indigenous rights and sovereignty, that works, too. Or you might volunteer for a climate-focused local or national political candidate.”

You can meet this prong of Ms. Marris’ unfucking your fucked-up head plan by voting. Voting is something you’re supposed to do anyway. Perhaps Ms. Marris means voting only for candidates of whom she approves. In order to cure yourself, you’re required to cede all powers and freedoms to Ms. Marris and her ilk. That seems reasonable.

Totally not a cult.

4. Define your role.

This prong is “everything within the group, nothing outside the group, nothing against the group.” It’s a catchy phrase but it sounded better in the original mid-20^th century Italian.

Lest you think Ms. Marris requires your absolute subservience, think again! Truly, she is a most benevolent Duce Fuhrer leader, concerned for her slaves minions fellow travelers:

“Take care not to overdo it at first and risk burning out. Set a sustainable level of involvement for yourself and keep it up. As a bonus, working with a group will increase the richness and diversity of your personal relationships, and may well temper your climate anxiety and depression.”

Only Ms. Marris can help you recover from your climate anxiety and depression. You should probably see her for an audit in which she’ll use an E-reader to rid you of your engrams so you may become cleared and an operational environmentalist.

Hey, Ms. Marris invented Scientology!

5. Know what you are fighting for, not just what you are fighting against.

‘Puter considered spending additional time and words to tear apart Ms. Marris’ last point but her own words do such a good job of discrediting her as a serious person, he decided to let you read them yourselves:

“As we fight, it is important for our mental health and motivation to have an image in mind of our goal: a realistically good future.

“Imagine dense but livable cities veined with public transit and leafy parks, infrastructure humming away to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, fake meat that tastes better than the real thing, species recovering and rewilding the world, the rivers silver with fish, the skies musical with flocking birds.

“This is a future where the economic inequality, racism and colonialism that made decades of inaction on climate change possible has been acknowledged and is being addressed. It is a time of healing. Many ecosystems have changed, but natural resilience and thoughtful human assistance is preventing most species from going extinct. This is a future in which children don’t need to take to the streets in protest and alarm, because their parents and grandparents took action. Instead, they are climbing trees.”

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD, OR ELSE YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL DIE IN A GIANT, GLOBAL OVEN OF YOUR MAKING! YOU ARE ENVIRO-HITLER EXTERMINATING YOUR KIN IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH MS. MARRIS! OBEY HER!

And while you’re at it, buy Ms. Marris’ book so you can virtue signal to your hippie friends and quote from it to shame your backwards, hick relatives you abandoned back in Flyover Country to make your way in the enlightened, totes cool coastal enclaves.

Ms. Marris’ piece cements many Americans’ opinion of the climate change cultists. They are narcissistic, weak-willed people who want to use government force to destroy jobs and limit freedoms in order to enter the promised land of a world where the Earth warms slightly less and everyone’s equally poor and miserable.

Most normal people want no part of the world Ms. Marris and her ilk wish to foist upon them. And Ms. Marris and her ilk are too stupid, too power-hungry, or too brainwashed to realize it.

Heed her words and act accordingly.

* Ms. Marris is the author of “Rambunctious Garden: Nature in a Post-Wild World” which sounds like a story about hippies refusing to tend their commune’s weed patch after their Cat Stevens’ Greatest Hits 8-track broke. 

** Did I mention Ms. Marris lives in Klamath Falls, Oregon? Because of course she does.