TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA: At Least That Is What Glen Beck Thinks.
Truth most certainly does have an agenda and that agenda is the survival and well being of humankind. This is as certain as the fact that Lie has an agenda, the harming and ultimate destruction of humankind. One is life engendering, the other life destroying.
Let us take the issue of Global Warming as an example of our battle between truth and lie.
First, there is nothing right wing or left wing about objective evidence. If it is indeed objective evidence then it is proof and not fantasy. If you read my article on Education (How We Think Determines What We Think: The Devolution of Education in America) you will understand the next paragraph. The need to "believe" in Global Warming reflects not just a simple flaw in character or blind spot that could be easily corrected by hearing the truth. It is the result of developmental conditioning, imbedded deep into the psyche.
The global warming mythology was calling on "the feel good response" (I'm a nice person; I care about the environment), what the Behaviourist call "belongingness." Those so programmed clung to that feeling of self-worth created by adherence to the mythology to the point that when the vast majority of the raw data was exposed to have been manipulated, they couldn't believe it. All they could do was demonise the people pointing out the error. Why?
When it was proved that there had been no consistent temperature measuring to the accuracy they were trying to extract from the data, over the periods they were examining, it was ignored. But the people pointing out the objective facts were demonised. Why?
When NASA admitted that from actual satellite observation measurements, that the amount of heat that is radiated from the atmosphere into outer space was far greater than any of the climatologically models suggested, they ignore it. Why?
This fact alone totally destroyed the theory of "greenhouse effect" upon which Global Warming was constructed. But by this time "science" (read that again) "The science" had become so completely removed from objective observation and fact (that is removed from Truth) that the NASA scientists actually sat on the satellite data for more than three years fearing to release it for fear of being savagely attacked by the "scientific establishment" and the media, and having their funding gutted by the administration! It wasn't until Obama gutted their funding anyway that they released the objective findings. Absolutely amazing!
If the population could be so violently pro Global Warming that they could not entertain this clear contrary data, how much less could they entertain the ideas that there were more subtle defects in the theory; like that the various climatologically models did not agree, or the idea that there still at this late date might be factors in the regulation of the earth's atmosphere of which we know nothing. This isn't merely stubborn narcissism; personal obtuseness. This is the masses being controlled and manipulated by the elite.
Creating a malleable population has been a long range project of the Progressives. They have been at it for more than one hundred years and totally in control of education for the last forty years. (Again I suggest reading the article mentioned in paragraph one)
Some people believe that the problems in America and the world would be solved if only the right and the left would meet in the middle, what I call "blind and stupid radical moderation." One has to ask: How could this have possibly helped in this confidence-game that has been the conspiracy of Global Warming? What moderation is possible against an agenda that is totally false? Would we really be better served by ceding any part of belief to a totally unproved theory?
Those educated in our public school system in the last 40 years are likely to argue that "truth is relative, based simply the perceptions of the individual person and that person's perceptions have no ontological basis." This is really an amazing premise, especially when the same people were screaming red-faced about Global Warming, "the SCIENCE is settled" as if that was an objective truth.
In this instance (and many others) one cannot place on par those on the right who "don't want to believe" and those on the left "who will believe no matter what." This is a spurious paradigm and part of the propaganda Al Gore pushed to our school children. "Your parents are old, they don't want to believe." This is a relativistic argument of equivalency ignoring the reality of objective truth. It says "my truth is not your truth; your truth is not my truth, but somewhere in this muck of illusion and miscomprehension we must have common ground." Really? Common ground with a lie? It cedes to the Progressives the "idea" of truth, when it is not truth. It eliminates the possibility that objective observation might favour one side of the argument over the other, not withstanding ones political bent or agenda.
What that perception fails to grasp is that so called 'right wing' folk are likely to accept what is proved true. This was seen in the support for the original clean air and clean water act. This was objective; the places where the air and the water were in difficulty were observable; and where not observable to the human eye, "upon reason" the conservatives were willing to accept the readings of scientific measurements as to what parts contaminants were in the air and water. I'm not speculating, this is what happened. Everyone supported cleaning up the air and water and I could give many other examples of "conservative clarity."
However, manipulation via pseudo-science isn't new. When in the 1950s Progressivists tried to panic people into the belief in extremely limited natural resources, few rational people believed them. In the 1950s we were taught that by the late 1970s humankind would have used all the oil on the planet. We were the parasites sucking the planet's life blood dry. When in the 1970s the Progressivist began to try to panic people into enslaving laws by proffering the idea that "if we ALL (humankind) didn't do something quickly" we were about to enter a new ice age. (Yes this happened - the attempted panic not the new ice age.) Rational people were sceptical. Why? Because they knew the elite (read Utopian Planning Progressivists) had moved from the "realm of the objective" to the "realm of utopia creation." "We've all got to work together to keep this from happening"; meaning, more government, more centralize control, less individual rights, less national sovereignty.
Seeing their failures with "limited oil supply" and the fear mongering about a new Ice Age the Progressives were more patient with global warming. They tried to condition an entire generation to believe it with a massive propaganda program. Financed by what came to be known as "Crime Inc." Al Gore was commissioned to make a movie, the establishment lauded the movie, heaping awards upon it. Billions were spend on advertising and sending propagandists into the public schools as special guest speakers. Countless classroom hours were wasted on the subject. Text books were skewed to reflect this mythology. Meanwhile behind the scenes Crime Inc. set themselves up, creating with Chicago Mafia money the "Carbon Bank" in which a who's who list of Progressivist politicians and activists stood to earn hundreds of billions, potentially trillions of dollars.
Unaware of the criminal conspiracy, people of reason were willing to entertain the "possibility there was actual Global Warming." All they asked was credible objective proof. However, the first time a major piece of evidence was ignored by the "people of science" the people of reason recognized that the plot at work was yet another utopia creation effort, meaning more centralized control, less liberty, less individual rights, less national sovereignty, more international control, more distribution of wealth through carbon taxation and credits etc. It was a global, U.N./New World Order/elitists campaign for one world government on a Marxist model and nothing less. Now the lines are drawn with more clarity.
Unaware of the criminal conspiracy, people of reason were willing to entertain the "possibility there was actual Global Warming." All they asked was credible objective proof. However, the first time a major piece of evidence was ignored by the "people of science" the people of reason recognized that the plot at work was yet another utopia creation effort, meaning more centralized control, less liberty, less individual rights, less national sovereignty, more international control, more distribution of wealth through carbon taxation and credits etc. It was a global, U.N./New World Order/elitists campaign for one world government on a Marxist model and nothing less. Now the lines are drawn with more clarity.
Young folks, I'm speaking to you, since you are the ones who will have to fight this battle. Global Warming is just one of the cons the Marxists have devised to take control of America and destroy Constitutional Rights and Liberties. If your generation wants to preserve American freedom, you've got a lot of remedial educating to do, but before you can do that, every person has to come to understand and see how easily they are manipulated by virtue of their "education via conditioning." Please read my article on Modern Education mentioned in the first paragraph and available on this blog site. You see, instead of an academic education capable of teaching critical thinking, if you are a product of public education and the mass media you are/were "conditioned by your education" instead of being educated. Without true academic education you are at the mercy of the "experts." You are like supplicants awaiting the next pronouncement from the Priestess at Delphi, or the tribesmen, awaiting the words of the shaman. The assaults on our freedom by the Progressivist are complex and multi-layered and Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change is just one front of a multi-front war.
Newt Gingrich Calls Al Gore's assumptions about Global Warming, lies and fantasy.
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
Newt Gingrich - Man vs Nature on Global Warming
Al Gore's financial interest in Global Warming Mythology exposed.
Lord Christopher Monckton Lecture exposing the fraud of Climate Change
National Press Club Debate Dr Richard Denniss vs Lord Christopher Monckton
Now for those who really don't want to face the fight, who really want to be radical middle of the road, everybody get along moderates, THINK! When one produces objective facts that destroy a "theory" and the person holding the theory answers, "You are evil, you are not like us." How much consensus do you really think is possible? +++
Why should we NOT take them at their word.
Why should we NOT take them at their word.
Yes, I have commented on this for a long time and even worked on models, but if you do not agree, then your models are not science it seems.
ReplyDeletehttp://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2008/06/cant-see-tress-because-theres-no-forest.html