This Week In History

On November 18, 1978 nine hundred followers of cult leader Jim Jones committed suicide by drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid. Jones convinced his followers that they were all doomed.

“We didn’t commit suicide, we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.”

Jones left his money to the “Communist Party of the Soviet Union”

Sound familiar, Joe?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to This Week In History

  1. Mike Davis says:

    It is an interesting history lesson and compares well with the current religious fad being followed. There are many similarities between the People’s Temple and the Church or AGW!

  2. ChrisD says:

    You know, it’s just as easy for those who believe the scientists are right to call you “skeptics” the Kool-Aid drinkers. So how is it meaningful? How does it add to the conversation? What is its value?

    • Philip Finck says:

      The difference is that you see what happens when you follow blindly and ask no questions.

      • ChrisD says:

        I could just as easily say the exact same thing about you. That’s why this kind of post is useless. It doesn’t address anything, it doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Whatever you guys say, I can say the same thing right back. It’s just a waste of bandwidth.

      • glacierman says:

        Then save some.

    • Paul H says:

      I think the key word you have used Chris is “believe”.

      When science is involved we need more than belief or faith.

      We want hard evidence that so far has been totally absent.

      PS Please don’t pretend that all the scientists accept global warming. We both know many don’t.

    • Mike Davis says:

      ChrisD:
      The sceptics are not the ones saying the science is settled so you should trust us!
      It seems the sceptics are saying “Take No Mans Word”

    • suyts says:

      Skeptics don’t preach doom and gloom. That’s how it is meaningful. See here for the results of self-loathing and defeatism. aka as a Darwin award.

    • glacierman says:

      @ChrisD
      Interesting how you put the word Skeptics in quotation marks, as in “so called skeptics”. I am sure this really grinded on you because you wanted to use a different word, like Denier, which you have used before, including on me.

      Also, you say those that believe the scientists are right……well most posting here are scientists. You won’t listen to a word any scientist says unless it is well within AGW dogma.

      About as much as any of your other comments.

    • glacierman says:

      @ChrisD

      “How does it add to the conversation? What is its value?”

      About as much as any other comment you make here.

    • John Endicott says:

      ChrisD says:
      You know, it’s just as easy for those who believe the scientists are right to call you “skeptics” the Kool-Aid drinkers.
      ——————-
      Kool-Aid drinkers is an euphemism for people who blindly and unthinkingly following authority. It’s an apt metaphor for the AGW alarmists. Skepticism, by it’s very nature is the antithesis of blindly and unthinkingly following authority.

      ChrisD says:
      How does it add to the conversation? What is its value?
      ————————-

      That’s very ironic, coming from you, the king of postings that add nothing of value to the conversation.

    • Charles Higley says:

      ChrisD said, “You know, it’s just as easy for those who believe the scientists are right to call you “skeptics” the Kool-Aid drinkers. So how is it meaningful?”

      The key difference between the skeptics and the global warming alarmists is that the skeptics present science that can be falsified (tested) and checked.

      The alarmists have a card castle of unsupported assumptions (aka, junk science) that cannot be defended, which is why they refuse to debate the “science” that they claim supports their position. Perforce everything they say must be opinion and unfounded belief (faith), as it is not based on facts or real science.

      If there was real science on their side you know for darn sure that they would be out there flogging it as hard as they can. Instead, they attack the characters, morals, and motivation of the skeptics, claiming that we do not care for the environment and/or are funded by big oil. The latter is funny as big oil funds the alarmists much more than the skeptics and the alarmist cause is funded overall (including biased government funding) about 1000-fold better than the skeptics.

      Most skeptics do not receive a penny in funding and are simply interested in defending the integrity of real science as well as stopping a ill-willed political agenda based on a false crisis based on junk science.

      The damage that would be inflicted on the people of the world if the alarmist policies were adopted would be obscene and truly evil, while allowing a small number of individuals to effectively take over the world in a huge grab for power and wealth. This is not conspiracy theory as their goals are public and published—it’s just that the goals are so huge that many people dismiss them.

    • Justa Joe says:

      Hits a little too close to home, huh Chuck?

      The comparison is cautionary pointing out the dangerous psychosis behind the CAGW “movement” and its charismatic (to warmists) leaders like Algore & Joe Romm.

      The warmists like Jim Jones are the ones preaching for revolutionary change – in the warmists’ case for “climate justice”. The skeptics only exist as a reaction to the out of control, costly, and dangerous ambitions of the warmists. Look and see which side is promoting draconian reductions in population and standards of living. Ol’ Jim Jone’s commume would be right in line with the warmists’ goals for reduction of “carbon footprints”.

  3. peterhodges says:

    yup beliefs are dangerous things. that’s why i am a skeptic

    i am old enough to remember seeing jonestown go down.

    i had a CSM in my army days who was flown down to clean up that mess. every so often at a party his wife would hold out her finger, “Robert got this ring off of Jim Jones down in Guyana…”

    he had some other “entertaining” stories as well.

    • Sean Ogilvie says:

      Peter,
      I’ve also got a friend who went down there. He was (from memory) US Army Graves and Registration.
      He told me that by the time they got there the bodies were already bursting. He offered to show me pictures but I turned him down.

  4. maguro says:

    It was actually Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid. Not only was Jim Jones a mass murderer, he was a cheap bastard as well.

  5. ChrisD says:

    Thank you all for proving my point so nicely. There isn’t a single comment here that I couldn’t just send right back.

    And that is all I have to say on this. Carry on with your pointless, meaningless bashing.

    • MikeTheDenier says:

      Chris, you express shock, SHOCK at “pointless, meaningless bashing”,
      yet you carry on with your pointless, meaningless posts.

  6. peterhodges says:

    chris, as usual, your point becomes less clear the more you post.

  7. NoMoreGore says:

    Chris makes a very good point (about warmers and left wingers in general) For them, anything can be true. Up is down, wrong is right, Frigid cold is actually warming, The arctic in (continuously dark) winter can look like the Bahamas. Marxism is a solution to a scientific problem. It’s a nether world where imagination runs amok and reality is just an alternative choice. This is commonly known as insanity.

    For the rational world, there truly is a right (and wrong) answer, as defined by empirical evidence. Theories must be provable and falsification falsifies. On this issue of CAGW, someone is right and someone is wrong. For those of us not living in the nether world, the answer is largely self evident.

    Like CAGW cultists, Jonestown cultists (and heaven’s Gate cultists, etc) were led by a prophet to believe they must destroy themselves to be free, or avoid impending doom.

    So CAGW cultists seek to cut off their own supply of energy, the destruction of industrialized society, austere self denial and rationing, rather than plan to adapt or (better) overcome and thrive in the face of a perceived threat.

    Most Realists, after tremendous investigation of AGW, have determined the risk is minimal, and stand ready to overcome. If we thought the risk great, we would choose to dominate the problem, not shrink from it. We approach such situations without fear.

    We accurately observe the self destructive nature of the CAGW cult, and see that it represents a greater threat to mankind than the “problem” it seems to fear. We are successfully overcoming this threat as well.

  8. TinyCO2 says:

    OT sorry.

    “10:10 campaign looks to 2011 and a ‘major policy victory’” or in other words, they’re at it again. Like zombies they keep getting up and walking.

    http://www.endsreport.com/25927/1010-campaign-looks-to-2011-and-a-major-policy-victory

    “It moved into adjacent, larger, premises early this year. Ten full-time employees are based there, alongside some part-time freelancers and four interns.” and they say that sceptics are well funded !

  9. Tom says:

    I would hope that no one would think there are many similarities between the People’s Temple, AGW and the Church. First sources are important in research, and while the consensus of science once said the earth was flat, the prophet Isaiah gave us some raw data from the First Source: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth…” Isaiah 40:22. A believer in Christ loves the Truth.

    • ChrisD says:

      while the consensus of science once said the earth was flat

      Actually, this was never the consensus of science. It was the consensus of people who didn’t believe the scientists (actually, the philosophers, who were proto-scientists).

      The ancient Greek philosophers thought the Earth was probably round as far back as the 6th century BCE and proved it as soon as they had the tools and math to do so, in the 3rd century BCE. And this was long, long before that advent of anything resembling modern science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s