Where did the Catastrophe End of the World politics develop? These ideas have always been out there. But there was a major zeitgeist that arose once the Nukular Bomb was developed.

The Nukular Bomb awed those developing it, and awed others. One “take” was: we can destroy so much at once, but do we have the humanity and ethics to manage this terrible power? The answer was “probably not.” And, the answers usually have some form of, “we must all band together across the globe to reduce the threat of Planetary Destruction.”

Harrison Brown was one of these “Manhattan Project” scientists. He wrote “Must Destruction Be Our Destiny?” in 1945. This explores the “we must bad together across the globe” answer.

H Brown was obviously brilliant. He was involved with others, including Clair Patterson, as they developed isotope analysis to try to determine the age of things far older than our human records have recorded. Patterson, supported by Brown and others, came up with Lead – Lead isotope dating, of a meteorite, to decide Earth is 4.5 billion years old. [I am distrustful that this isotope dating work as planned, but it is very clever.]

With the power to destroy an entire nation seemingly plausible, and a very old universe, Many threw God out of the mix.

This is an ingredient in all of this Enviro-Geddon talk.

In 1954, Brown wrote, “The Challenge of Man’s Future.” He moved from the topic of Nukular Destruction to overpopulation, environmental ruin, etc.

Many people began to puck up on this theme. Again, it was really a zeitgeist.

M.K. Hubbert, maybe a theoretical physicist, great with math, examined the extinguishing of natural resources, and came up with “Peak Oil.” Brown may have known this work before the Ground Zero paper on Peak Oil was presented in 1956, two years after Brown “The Challenge of Man’s Future.”

Paul Ehrlich wrote “Population Bomb” in 1968. John Holdren joined up with Ehrlich. I believe Holdren has acknowledged Brown as a major influence. Ehrlich, Holdren, and Anne Ehrlich wrote “Ecoscience,” something of an ecology “textbook,” in 1978. If you goo gle search for this, you will see how totalitarian they were, with ideas such as putting birth control in the water supply.

What this bit of history says, in my opinion, is that our modern concern with human ruin of the planet, and or overpopulation, really start with the Nukular Age. Many of us began taking a very different view of the world, politics, war, the planet, human nature, etc.

It also says, in my opinion, that a major force has been scientists getting out of their lane. There are a hundred books out there from medical doctors saying “what is wrong with the health care system, and how to solve it.” Likewise, there are many Nukular scientists deciding they will play politics. And, they have inspired sociologists, etc. Out of their lane. Expert in one topic does not make you expert in another.

It also says: the many predictions of catastrophe are not as solid as people believe. Peak oil was supposed to be in 1970, per Hubbert.

Finally, it says: the average public will pay attention to “scientist says.” Says we are headed for “environmental collapse, global cooling, global warming, etc.

Get an old copy of Brown’s “The Challenge of Man’s Future.” 1954. Maybe someone can review this.

I have been a life-long Democrat. [The Party has left me, hence I am The Last Democrat.]

In 2005-2008, I noticed strong, cult-like, rabid adherence to crazy ideas including global warming, from my long -time friends and colleagues, which were pretty clearly known since we were all on Face book.

I sparred with some of them a bit on various issues, including global warming. Around 2008, I discovered Watts Surface Stations project, and so found WUWT. So, I was well-educated. But facts and so on had no place in these discussions or debates.

I figured out that something other than just being a liberal, and wanting the world to be a better place, was operating.

I explored what people were saying, and why. Including what they were for, and against. I figured out that many intelligent, reasonable, decent people had ended up in what I labeled a “Virtue Cult.”

It was not a religious cult, with a Revelation / Armageddon End-Of-World leader like we think of; instead, the goal was to be Virtuous by having heard and joined up with the Right Ideas, while realizing that Everyone Else was either Ignorant or Evil.

This is the appeal of a cult. And, a cult is a cult partly by inspiring people to be one of the Chosen Few who know the Real Truth, but it is a cult because the Cult Views DO NOT match up with reality.

Since a cult has views that do not match up with reality, examining them with rationality and evidence will quickly reveal the illogic.

So, any cult must protect against its members examining how the cult view of the world does not match reality.

They produce thinking patterns, and repeat them, to be innoculated against the real world, logic, and truth. The two main “discourse” strategies are: Move the Goalposts, and Name-Calling.

As you get into a debate or discussion with a True Believer, look for these. Decide your point and stick to it; do not let them drag you through 100 various weak data points or ideas. Then, identify that they have changed the goalposts, or have engaged in name-calling.

Then, tell them: “since you have lef the disucssion by moving to change-the-goalposts or name-calling, I have won the argument. Global warming is a flase story meant to get political power from us. and that is the end of the debate here today. Or, let’s get back to facts and data and logic.”

They will attack you with accusations, or storm off. They can ignore facts and discussion because you are either Ignorant or Evil. So, you do not deserve the effort of discussion.

I posted this Virtue Cult idea here, and mostly here alone. Back in maybe 2009. Since then, the Cult idea has grown.

Now, on the “Left” many are labeling those who disagree with them as “cult.”

Beyond this Virtue Cult insight, I pondered what was behind this.

The answer I arrived at was “Communism / Marxism.”

To the Marxists, Enemy Number One is Our Prevailing Society. So, they are driven to undercut our prevailing society. Eventually, they believe we will all join in revolution and install Communism, and all be happy.

To undercut Our Prevailing Society, they have two methods. First is The Virtue Cult. How did they figure this out? Fromm and other Communists studied Social Sciences very well. Especially “persuasion,” and how we each form political opinions.

My circa 1985 Government class, taught by a grad student, was all about Fromm and attitude change. And, very anti-Reagan. As I was. So, it was palatable to me. I did not know I was being taught frank Communism.

In Sociology class, it was all an expose of The Protestant Work Ethic, via Max Weber – another Communist. Weber and my prof believed that all of us “buy into” this idea about hard work and personal responsibility b eing sold to us by some master capitalist controllers.

Communists figured out how our society works. The nuts and bolts of family, church, economics, opinions, media, etc.

And they have been taking that knowledge and using it against us. To destroy Our Prevailing Society.

So, I agree that it is the Reds behind the Green movement.