Propoganda and the Hate Factor
Posted by TruthFreedom1 11 years ago to Politics
So true but best outright straightforward explanation of our Corporate elitist I've heard yet.
SOURCE URL: http://www.thinkingdepot.com/?p=10
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
While the concealment of being paid is deplorable, there is a worse motivation - (false) altruism. This is where a person acts to further ideals but the arguments are emotional or simply not thought thru. This often for those of the new religion in its various guises of equality, fairness, and environmentalism.
(lol... there's a charity I might start... "Friends of Global Whatever"... our motto will be, "Apathy... meh, who needs it?")
I suppose those who are not apathetic and acting out of conviction could be perceived as being aggrandizing. Meh... I'm OK with that.
Yes indeed, like heat.
The climate change alarmist industry has explained the missing heat which has not shown in global surface air temperature increases since 1997. It has gone under water into the oceans. It has almost surfaced under the Arctic where it is melting the ice and spreading it around thus accounting for the increase in area covered by ice this year compared with last year. In the Antarctic, the heat has gone into the deep oceans where, it has drawn away heat from the land causing lower surface temperatures. It will suddenly surface, and say Boo!
Confession, the last sentence comes from Monckton.
Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions) claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords, a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article. Great rep this guy has. Is this were you are getting your information from?
Are you interested in accolades from the powers that be, or clear, researched, and considered opinions? I would suggest the latter is a hallmark of science.
Monckton
His passport says 'The holder is The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley', he is a member of the House of Lords.
βThe House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to β but did not β remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.β source-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-...
There are statements every day from climate change economists, accountants, consultants, analysts, advocates, believers, scare mongers, actresses, and so on, none of them know as much about the so-called science of climate change as Monckton. Further, he knows more than the supposedly scientifically qualified but posturing frauds behind the scam.
For Monckton's reply to critic Professor John Abraham, and outcome, see-
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...
I recommend this reply as it answers many questions about his knowledge and ability to defend it. This reply tho' now a few years old still stands exemplary for demolishing climate change alarmism as it is based on evidence rather than slander of the kind used against him personally and those targeted by the offensive appellation 'denier'.
Warning to 'Truth '- Monckton is nearly always right.
Warning to most others- he is a conservative and a Christian, ah well nobody's perfect.
This site shows who sits in the House. His name is not to be found.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-o...
This is the list of the Ineligible which he claims to be. His name is not to be found.
He has no affiliation with the House of Lords as he claims and is Viscount in name and through heredity only. He can claim the title but not membership in the house.
There was no science in the article linked to consider.
I am happy to address the Monsanto issue if you post on it. There are two parts to that debate. 1. genetically modified seed and patents
2. the cronyism factor of the US govt granting one company(!) special rights under the law. Outrageous!
but to this topic, I think you have it backwards. People promote laws and regulations that government pass. They also support policies which grow govt intentionally or not. The larger the govt, the more powerful it is. The more powerful it is, the more corporations and individuals want to get in bed with it so that they can increase their power.
If the govt is small and limited, there is no purpose to giving millions in donations, or lobbying. To what end? You would know from the outset that a limited govt would be...limited-not all-powerful. However, if government can change it's limits everytime the majority rules on anything, even if you constrain the corporations (the crony ones), you will just keep those corporations looking for ways to set up non profits or NGOs to fund the lobbyists and the lobbyists will most certainly have a job influencing govt and gathering a majority of voters. Attack the real problem.
Influence over citizens-hmm, this is interesting to me, because in the US, the public school system has over the last 40 years taken on the agenda of the socialists, which in turn have great influence over our children -pre through 12th grade. Do you see those influences harmful as well? Because the govt controls most of our schools, it has a vested interest in teaching more govt is good and vilifying the private sector as evil. I wonder if it is the same in Canada?
I find it significant that progressives almost *always* want to immediately go to the broadest level of government to implement their proposed laws.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28...
And Huff Post? Really? C'mon...
http://mercatus.org/publication/crony-ca...
Education - Yes it is the same. Curriculum is largely in favor of government. I always wondered why finance or money management was not a core piece of the curriculum? May be different down there.
Lobbying I will address later and I will post regarding Monsanto. Which yes is very outrageous.
sigh
Being unusual is highly over-rated.