On cults and catastrophism

As a writer I see the world as divided into creators and critics. Politically a similar division exists between conservatives and dismantlers. There are stoics and worriers, contrarians and sheep, critical thinkers and the impressionable. Immunity from manipulation is not a natural state; we have to inoculate ourselves.

It is with that in mind that I approach this blog post with a charitable attitude. No one can reasonably claim to have never been fooled by a disingenuous argument. We’re all prone to latching on to persuasive statements which are light on detail. We like simplicity over the complicated. We’re instinctively tribal.

And yet I can’t help feeling that society is slow to respond to trends which are obviously wrong. Perhaps there is another binary we should recognise: the observant and the inattentive. No progressive movement starts with a tidal wave because it would fail. The approach is cautious and subtle, trying to go unnoticed.

But the clues are always there if one is alert to them. That’s one of the reasons why the first who notice the warning signs find themselves waiting for others to catch up. A few brave souls peer above the parapets to ward off the invaders, but it is the weight of public opposition which turns defence to counterattack.

A lot of people talk about the increasing polarisation of ideas in society, but I’m not convinced that is the case. I do see movements becoming ever more fanatical, and we’ve seen that in the predatory nature of the transgender lobby and its wicked focus on children. Opponents of this madness are not extremists.

It is for this reason that I refuse to accept there are equally radical positions on each side of a debate. This is a convenient falsehood. The division is always between a small group of zealots and the sensible majority. We see this with every progressive cause, and one of the most egregious is climate agitprop.

As I watched footage of weeping children going on climate marches, inspired by truant-in-chief Greta Thunberg, I began to realise that the entire green movement was becoming seriously unmoored from reality. But the crazy beliefs of these kids were so strong that I knew something else was going on.

I knew then I was witnessing cult behaviour, and it was affecting adults as well as children. The doomsday predictions of environmental groups became ever more absurd but, in a unique twist, they found traction in official consciousness. Politicians even created legislation based on fantasy predictions of disaster.

I had always wanted to write a novel based on a cult. The rise of the environmental fanatics seemed like the obvious subject, and I saw the opportunity to explore the convergence of cult psychology and the green movement. I researched both topics in depth and then wrote BOUND TO KILL, my first crime novel.

Books often develop from a simple question. Having seen the behaviour of activists escalate from mild protests to blocking roads and vandalism, I asked myself what would happen if those tactics failed to achieve their goals. How far would they go for their cause? The history of cults provided some answers.

But this blog post is not about the novel’s plot; you can read the book for yourself. What I’m interested in exploring here is the psychology of a radical movement. It all seems rather nutty, but to think that way is a huge mistake. Cult members are indoctrinated, not mad. There’s a very significant difference.

This comes back to one of my observations in the first paragraph. Cults recruit impressionable people. In fact anyone with mental illness will not be accepted into a cult because they’re unpredictable and hard to control. They want idealistic people instead, and they can be drawn from a variety of backgrounds.

That’s why children are superb targets. Their limited worldview is easily swayed by slogans devoid of historical context. Creating fear is a hallmark of cults. But what of the adults? Well, there are several groups who are susceptible to malign influence, from academics to young globetrotters on spiritual quests.

But it doesn’t even have to be that specific. Many people yearn for a sense of purpose, such as leaving the planet in a better state for future generations, or simply the companionship of people who seem to share their point of view. The initial approach of a cult is always warm and welcoming. The control comes later.

I was amazed to learn from cult expert Steven Hassan that indoctrination can take place in as little as four days. The goal is to shift the individual’s perception away from reality toward the doctrine of the cult. A variety of techniques are used which I don’t need to explore here, but the cult dogma becomes reality.

That’s why it is impossible to argue with a cult member. Every question is seen as an attack on the belief system. You’ll have seen this in action when their spokesmen are interviewed. If you are still not convinced that the green movement is a cult, read this account by a former member of Extinction Rebellion.

It’s worth referring to the quote by Leon Festinger which I included at the front of the novel: ‘The reality which impinges on a person will exert pressures in the direction of bringing the appropriate cognitive elements into correspondence with that reality.’ This summarises his theory of cognitive dissonance.

You may have heard the term before. Put simply, it is an explanation of the steps which a person has to take to detach himself from a conflicting viewpoint. We do this every day, such as when justifying unnecessary purchases or making decisions at work. Festinger’s theory is that we find ways to support our choices.

Cults take this a step further, understanding that there will be resistance to extreme viewpoints. According to Hassan, one of the ways they do this is by controlling access to information. The cult member still needs to achieve cognitive dissonance, so he ultimately changes his behaviour so it aligns with the ideology.

That’s why adherents see nothing wrong about blocking ambulances or spraying paint over buildings. Their actions are justified in their minds because they prove loyalty to the belief system. Cult members can rightly be described as acolytes. In my novel I speculated on how dangerous this zealotry could become.

The climate cause, however, does not rely entirely upon activist groups. There is a great deal of clever propaganda paid for by very wealthy organizations, and this is seen endlessly in the media. Various tactics are used, such as the unfounded slur that opponents are ‘climate deniers’ who reject ‘the science’.

That sort of messaging relies upon the fact that most people do not understand the scientific method and that a consensus on a subject is not scientific at all. ‘The science’ amounts to dubious claims by climate modellers who endlessly tweak their programs to match their forecasts. Modelling is not evidence.

These manipulations require blatant dishonesty in many cases. Temperatures are ‘adjusted’ upwards to fit the warming narrative. One model was even found to include water that did not freeze and negative cloud cover. I’ve seen clear skies but never anti-clouds. Modelling is inherently flawed. It’s modern-day snake oil.

Perhaps the most preposterous claim is that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. It is a trace gas, just 0.04% of the atmosphere, and the proportion of that linked to ‘bad’ human activities is a sliver of that number. Attributing crisis to less than a ten thousandth of one percent of gas is the extreme position.

Questioning whether that tiny amount of carbon dioxide can have an effect on the climate is therefore a moderate position, and even if it is accepted that it might, the influence is too small to be statistically significant. The analogy I use in the book is expecting a pebble resting against a mountain to push it over.

William Happer makes the point in this video (20:52) that when a disturbance is made to a natural system, the system adjusts to diminish the change that has been made to it (Le Chatelier’s Principle). Rather than collapsing into a dystopian ruin as predicted by the alarmists, nature preserves a state of equilibrium.

One of the neatest tricks played by the climate lobby was to conflate pollution with climate change. They are, of course, unrelated. Pollution is a short-term local problem that has nothing to do with the gigantic forces of our solar system. Climate variation is mostly driven by solar energy and the Milankovitch Cycles.

But I return cult psychology. Trying to persuade believers they are wrong by discussing the World Climate Declaration or the data compiled by the CO2 Coalition is a pointless endeavour. It is the politicians who need to be persuaded to repeal their climate laws and cripplingly expensive CO2 reduction targets.

And while many ordinary people are yet to be persuaded that climate change is not a threat, critical mass is building against the draconian measures that politicians have sought to impose upon the citizenry. Net zero is an absurd and unnecessary proposition. I repeat, opposition to these ideas is not an extreme position.

It is surely a reflection on the arrogance of mankind to think we can somehow control the climate, but this is actually a fervent centuries-old affliction. More recently, numerous predictions have been made by so-called experts, and not a single one has come true. Our arguments need to be firmly based in evidence.

I find myself baffled by the steampunk-esque notion of carbon capture, imagining great airships scooping gas from the atmosphere for storage in underground chambers. Do its proponents not realise that there are no more carbon atoms in existence today than when our planet formed? Let us reject this foolery.

There are signs of progress, such as slight delays in the imposition of green targets, but while politicians still claim that global warming is a real threat which can be prevented, they remain under the mind control of the cult’s puppet masters. This is not a fight for the future of the planet but for the restoration of sanity.