Interview with Linda Goudsmit

Author of Humanitarian Hoaxes. A conservative intellectual with lots to say about all the main political issues.

Pull quote: “The Humanitarian Hoax of Eternal Childhood is the key to understanding the war on America. Freedom is an adult enterprise. Collectivism, whether it is socialism, communism, or globalism, demands emotional dependence and uncritical acceptance of what we are told. No thank you.”

Interview by Bruce Deitrick Price.

13 thoughts on “Interview with Linda Goudsmit

  1. “… the far-left is killing America with destructive policies presented to us as altruistic—for example: Common Core, New World Order, Climate Change, Leftism, Political Correctness, White Supremacy, Collectivism, Globalism, United Nations, Ballot Harvesting, and 40 others.”

    All buzzwords to inflame the political divisions we already have.

    They are really a mishmash of words that have little relation to reality. For example, the way it is written, the left is promoting White Supremacy. That Climate Change is still a hoax evidently. Ballot Harvesting is what the GOP conservatives did in North Carolina last election. Leftism, is that better or worse than Rightism? New World Order was Bush the Elder’s idea.

    Revisionist history versus real history. Conservatives are so afraid of any criticism of the US as if we were a holy creation and “political blasphemy” was a real crime. We are a nation among 200 others. We have had a very good financial success for a variety of reasons. Until 2017 we had a relatively corrupt free government. Opportunities here are better than most, but not the best.

    Bottom line is that if we don’t question our politics, beliefs and values on a regular basis, we cannot see the underlying corrosiveness that comes with ignorance. National narcissism is not only unhealthy, it is the road to perdition almost literally.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I think you’re missing the point. For example,

    Climate change is not a hoax, but the political positions that stem from the issue are most certainly a hoax.

    Right now, Oregon’s governor is claiming the wildfires in the state are the result of climate change. They are not. They are the result of 30 years of mismanagement of the state’s forests under the direction of environmentalists.

    Fire has always been part of the ecology of the west. But roads and housing in forest areas have resulted in blocking of the controlled burns foresters use to reduce fuel mass because of air quality concerns and endangered species. As a result the forests are full of underbrush and deadfalls that will burn like gasoline.

    So, the temperatures in Oregon MAY BE a 10th of a degree warmer than 50 years ago on average, but cyclical droughts lasting years and even decades occurred there for hundreds of thousands of years, even during the last ice age. That 10th of a degree is not the problem, millions of tons of dry, dead wood are.

    But Gov Brown wants to blame people driving cars in Virginia and elsewhere for those fires to deflect the blame for her (and previous governors) caving to environmentalists and abandoning sound forest management practices.


    1. Yes, forest management has been found faulty. And it is both a state and federal issue since, in CA at least, 57% of the forested land is federal.

      Still, there has been drought and record heat for a long time, and that exacerbates the dryness of dead wood, etc.

      The biggest issue, however, is that we allow housing development in the wilderness areas. That puts the fire fighters at much greater risk. Plus time and effort spent rescuing residents draws from the ability to both fight the fire and in calmer times, tend to the forest management with more scientific methods.

      Developers get free fire fighting services and insurance pays for the rebuilds. We need to reign in the private sector builders or tell folks that if they decide to live in the wilderness they are on their own.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree that we should let insurance prices reflect risk to discourage development in dangerous areas, but at the same time, we should not impose regulations on those homeowners that add to their risk

        Prior to people moving in. low intensity fires consuming underbrush and deadfalls traveled hundreds of miles. But now roads, especially 4 lanes, act as firebreaks.

        Foresters made up for that with controlled burns, but they are smoky and kill some endangered rats(of course, they always did) and environmentalists obtained injunctions demanding environmental impact statements, which take years to develop, while the window of favorable weather for the controlled burns lasts only a few months.

        So, the management tools that works was taken away in Western States.

        So, what are the people to do? Whether the people build house or not, the roads and the lack of controlled burns mean low intensity fires become high intensity fires involving the crowns of the trees, and those will cross roads.


    2. With all due respect, you are engaging in some very “loose talk”. Take this statement . . .

      “political positions that stem from the issue are most certainly a hoax.”

      I think you mean that you personally do not care for the policy responses that other people advocate when it comes to dealing with climate change? I hate to tell you, ideas or preferences different from yours are not a “hoax.”

      Far closer to a “hoax” is the attempt to pretend that climate change has had nothing to do with these massive fires. Or that climate is not a concern for California forests because ““Ok, it’ll start getting cooler, you just watch.” .”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. It hasn’t warmed enough to make any difference in the wildfires, and as I pointed out earlier. globally, wildfires are down, not up. Droughts, some lasting decades, on the West coast can be read in tree ring proxies back to prior to the last ice age.

        Remember that the same places with droughts now were having floods and mudslides a few years ago. Weather happens.

        The Hoax is that to warp off some climate boogeyman, we must give power and wealth to politicians who can’t do a damn thing about the climate anyway.

        The Paris Accord, (the goals of which the United States alone, which is not a signatory, has met) would, by the IPCC models themselves, have made no more than 1/10th of a degree difference in 100 years, and would have cost the world $100 Trillion or more, and would have succeeded mostly in making a handful of very rich despots and cronies even richer, is the greatest hoax in history.


  3. This interview by a “conservative intellectual” with another “conservative intellectual” raises a question . . .

    Is it fair for “Leftist” intellectuals to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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