NEW WORD FOR THE N.Y. TIMES: 'FASMUNISTS'

Lord Monckton reacts below to Snyder's 'climate scam' piece in the NYT, warning of a 'next genocide'.  I thought I was pretty acerbic at times but Monckton leaves me far behind.

There is a small coda to this Snyder nonsense that I would like to mention: As Monckton documents below, Snyder explicitly compares climate skeptics to Hitler.  In my comment on Snyder yesterday I pointed out that was actually Snyder who was comparable to Hitler!  Fair enough?  Apparently not. I got a tweet about that from someone who calls himself The Tracker -- @IdiotTracker .  His  tweet in full was:

"@jonjayray @ClimateDepot That is possibly the dumbest attempt at guilt by association I've ever seen. And I've read @JoanneNova's blog. #sad"

He shows absolutely no awareness that it was Snyder who was attempting to create guilt by association.  Selective vision at its finest! Only Leftists are allowed to talk about Hitler, apparently.  I don't in fact think I was attempting to create guilt by association.  I think I was making an accurate historical comparison, while Snyder certainly was not

The Marxstream news media have always been champions of every passing totalitarian fad, however murderous. Hitler only got away with the slaughter of 6 million Jews because the Western news media fawned upon him and demanded appeasement almost until the first shots were fired in the Second World War. Likewise, the totalitarian press fawned upon Communism, even as it killed 100 million in the 20th century alone, to such an extent that some papers could scarcely bring themselves to cheer when the Berlin wall was torn down.

Naturally, therefore, they all signed up dutifully to the climate scam, the new and ingenious but false and intrinsically genocidal pretext for the global government centered on the U.N. that, barring a miracle, will be established in Paris this December. In support of this ghastly endeavor, the New York Times ran an outstandingly repellent opinion piece on Sept. 12 by a useless professor of tiddlywinks and raffia work at Yale, one Snyder (by name and nature) describing those of us who dare to question the climate scam as adopting “an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”

Let us put that revolting and stunningly inapt comparison into its context. This is what the evil Snyder wrote and the New York Times(“all the junk that’s fit to debunk”) published, under the headline, “The Next Genocide”:

“Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science – an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”

I have no idea how much taxpayer money this egregious waste of space has accumulated over the decades. Every cent of it was wasted.

Let us take apart Snyder’s tortuous attempt not only to deny that Hitler was a greenie but also to make out that he was somehow “anti-science.” First, Hitler did not “spread ecological panic”; he exploited environmentalism as a method of ruthless control.

The National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany was the first in the world to adopt the “green” mantle, for Hitler and his goons were ahead of the pack in appreciating what Snyder and his overpaid, under-educated fellow goons in the batik and tie-dyeing department at Yale kindergarten well understand: If you are arrogant enough to want to control the populace, the “green” agenda – let us call it “Agenda 21″ – is the very best program to provide nonsensical excuses for the governing elite to interfere expensively in every tiny detail of our lives.

And Hitler’s problem was not that he “denied the science that promised alternatives to war.” He wanted war, and he embraced the science that made it possible.

The reason for Snyder’s more than usually dumb comparison was, of course, so that he could clamber onto the “global-warming” bandwagon just as all the wheels are coming off. Snyder, plainly no scientist, labors under the elementary delusion that CO2 is “pollution.” For what does a communist need to know about science? One thing and one thing only – the party line. And Snyder knows the party line all right, for it is spouted interminably in the knitting and crochet-work department at Yale and Harvard and other places where they used to think and now merely chant currently fashionable hard-left slogans.

Snyder is, in effect, accusing the Republican Party and the few business interests not yet profiteering monstrously from the climate fraud of being as genocidal as Hitler. The truth, of course, is that the real genocide is happening unseen every day in Africa, where for a tenth of what we are already squandering on the non-problem that was “global warming,” we could give everyone cheap, reliable, clean, fossil-fueled electric power, lift them out of poverty, disease and death, and hence stabilize the population, minimizing its environmental footprint.

To get the scare going, the climate communists made certain definite predictions that have just as definitely not come to pass. Those first predictions in 1990 were to the effect that by now there would have been almost three times as much global warming. It is legitimate, therefore, to raise questions about why there has been negligible global warming in the oceans throughout the entire 11 years of systematic measurement, and none at all in the lower atmosphere for 18 years and eight months, according to the satellites.

It is Snyder, then, who is anti-science – or would be, if he or anyone in the origami and card-tricks department at Yale were bright enough. All the predictions of doom in which he believes because they constitute the party line have been proven utterly false. All the ice gone in the Arctic by 2013: Nope, it’s still there. Droughts increasing (Snyder’s hate speech is illustrated with a photo captioned to the effect that droughts are worsening): Nope, the area of the globe under drought has been declining for 30 years. Sea-level rise accelerating (Snyder’s article has a photo caption alleging that “in Bangladesh millions of people have been displaced by floods and the rising sea level”): Nope, sea level off Bangladesh has actually fallen throughout the recent record. Storms increasing: Nope, there’s been no land-falling hurricane in the U.S. for longer than at any time since records began, and global storminess has remained much the same throughout the satellite era.

Should Snyder have been allowed to preach so much malice and hate so openly, so mendaciously, and with so scandalously little intellectual rigor or moral justification? One might have hoped for better from the coloring-by-numbers department at Yale. Your Constitution, though, says hate speech is fine, and the Supreme clots will uphold it as long as the speaker is left-wing.

However, the New York Times,though it takes full advantage of the constitutional right of free speech, has shown itself to be culpably determined not to allow any point of view but its own to be argued in its pages, particularly on any question – such as climate – that lies at the heart of the communist party line that it espouses. Do not hold your breath for an early reply to Snyder’s goose-stepping in that once-great paper’s shabby columns.

Let us hope that the Grand Old Party will remember Snyder’s words of sheer, hate-filled wickedness and make absolutely sure that every penny that might otherwise have gone to the face-painting and dressing-up department at Yale in funding for any purpose is cut off and put straight back into the pockets of the hard-pressed taxpayers from which it was wrenched.

It is Snyder who is the little Hitler here. Like Hitler, he believes that only one point of view is permissible on the question of the hour. Like Hitler, he espouses what history will reveal to have been entirely the wrong point of view. Like Hitler, he accuses his opponents of genocide while advocating it himself by demanding that the U.S. should adopt the brutal, genocidal climate-communist party line. Like Hitler, he uses the environment as a threadbare cloak for rank totalitarian advocacy. Like Hitler, he hates his own country enough to spit upon it and to wish to do it harm for absolutely no good reason. Like Hitler, he distorts the scientific truth and exploits it in an unprincipled fashion for the sake of spreading hatred. Like Hitler, he knows little or no science himself. Like Hitler, he flagrantly, knowingly, repeatedly, hatefully states the direct opposite of the objective truth.

What, then, to do about Snyder? No doubt there are still a few red-blooded Americans at Yale, mingling among the etiolated, apolaustic epicenes who mince about the place. Let them, passing Snyder as he scurries earnestly toward the stenciling-and-crayons department, throw him a mocking Nazi salute and, at the tops of their voices, yell “Heil Snyder!”

The odious Snyder deserves the minting of a new word. For there are two species of totalitarian socialism on this planet, alas, and that shambling, bleating wretch is the very embodiment and quintessence of both. There is communist socialism, which believes that everything that moves should be nationalized and that everything that doesn’t move should be arrested or left to rust, and down with the United States. And there is fascist socialism, which believes grinding the poor under its jack-booted heel and cozying up to big business and allowing it to be independent just so long as it toes the party line, and down with the United States.

The New York Times and its dismal professor of silly walks and cupcake-baking are communists and fascists rolled up into one. They are fasmunists. It’s an ugly word for ugly people. Heil Snyder!

SOURCE