Raheem Kassam minder os om historiens lære i Commentator
Edmund Burke’s prescience regarding the French Revolution and the inherent nature of ‘radicalism’ – that is to say the inevitability of spending, debt and tyranny inflicted by leftist ideals – is just as relevant in the 21st century as it was at the time of his writing ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’.
One of Burke’s most crucial points in my mind is the remarkable nature of populist rhetoric and how the ideas of ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’ would result in further subjugation of the masses at the hands of Robespierre and subsequently, Napoleon.
Sold to the French in 1789 terms as, “We are the 99%”, the doctrine of maximum pricing (the ‘General Maximum’) led not only to rampant social discord as citizens squealed on their wealth creating neighbours, but further throttled the economy, the will to produce and made unfair scapegoats of those who had previously contributed the most to the French economy. Sound familiar?
Det er et velkendt fænomen at man kan slippe afsted med at skrive ganske skrækkelige ting på de digitale medier, hvis blot man tilføjer en smiley. “Dræb jøderne hvorend i finder dem!” er meget værre end “Dræb jøderne hvorend i finder dem :-)”, men heldigvis har islamisterne ikke fundet ud af det endnu. Sådan en smileyeffekt har økologi, bæredygtighed og klimaet. Den rene fascisme regnes som helt legitime demokratiske argumenter hos de fleste debattører, politikere og journalister når blot man tilføjer noget sympatisk om Moder Jord.
Tidens største trussel mod jorden, som den beskrives af det esoteriske klimapanel, tages så meget for givet at dissens og nådesgaven tvivl anses som obstruerende og skadelig. Den logiske følge - så langt som nogen tænker i logiske følger (hvilket ikke alle heldigvis gør, men mange) - er naturligvis at overveje, hvorledes man får fjernet opposition eller endda oppositionen fra debatten - hvorledes man redder debattens økologi så vi kan diskutere at vi gør som vi får besked på.
Guardian, som ellers har sine helt egne øko-fascister i sin stab, fortæller hvorledes fair debat er unfair
An Australian television documentary that gives equal weight to a climate sceptic and a believer has been strongly criticised by scientists as unfairly skewing the evidence on global warming.
The hour-long programme, I Can Change Your Mind About Climate, broadcast on ABC TV, pits Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition against conservative political power broker and climate sceptic, Nick Minchin (until recently Minchin sat in the upper house of parliament as an opposition Liberal party senator). In the film, each chooses an equal number of people anywhere in the world to introduce the other to, in a bid to change their mind on climate change.
Scientists and environmentalists say the film gives the misleading impression that the debate on the science of climate change is not settled.
Kunne man forestille sig en debat mellem Johanne Schmidt Nielsen og Claus Hjort Frederiksen som ikke var vægtet lige fordi Enhedslisten på så mange planer er sekterisk i sin virkelighedsopfattelse? Men med klimaet er det anderledes for det er virkeligt vigtigt og så kan det ikke overlades til debat. Alert Net fortæller at også klimapanelets formand ser tvivl, som en trussel mod planeten
BANGKOK (AlertNet) - Continuing scepticism about climate change in some parts of the world threatens the planet and the people on it, according to Rajendra K. Pachauri, chief of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“I think global society has to realise that we are affecting the climate of this planet and this is the only planet that we have,” he said in Bangkok Friday at the Southeast Asia launch of the IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters
While scepticism about climate change continues in some parts of the world – particularly the United States – “some facts, which are incontrovertible need to be accepted by the public,” he urged.
Eller som klimadebattøren Joe Romn skriver på Think Progress i vrede over at PBS har bragt et indslag om den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heartland Institute
Would you give air time to someone who says the Earth is flat or cigarettes don’t cause cancer and simply follow those falsehoods by ”These are views challenged by scientific evidence.” How about a Holocaust denier?
By quoting Heartland, PBS is conferring legitimacy on it as a source. After all, the NewsHours is highly credible news outlet. The message PBS sends to the audience and the world by quoting Heartland at all is that these folks have a legitimate place in the debate. They don’t.
Ja, man skal ikke gå og brænde inde med den slags. Det er bare med at få det sagt, hvis man da må. Peter C Glover fra Commentator gennemgår en række tidligere eksempler
Journalist Alex Lockwood (in the leftwing UK Guardian) proposes “the internet should be nationalised as a public utility in order to contain the superfluous claims of warming skeptics”. Fred Pearce (again in the UK Guardian) demands we “silence the doubters”. At the 2007 Live Earth concert, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr called for skeptics to be “treated as traitors” following this up with the demand that all coal execs “should be in jail for all eternity”.
Fascist intolerance? We’re only getting started.
Alarmist high priest James Hansen has called for skeptics to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity”. Hansen has also endorsed a book by Keith Farnish that advocates sabotage and environmental terrorism by blowing up dams and demolishing cities to return us to an agrarian age. Hard left Grist magazine columnist David Roberts wants“war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Canadian environmentalist author, David Suzuki, suggests finding a “legal way of throwing our [climate foot-dragging political] leaders into jail” their climate negligence being “a criminal act”. Wouldn’t the Canadian Civil Liberties Association be appalled? After all, Suzuki is a former board member. Talking Points Memo is fairly representative of the views of hard left websites, asking, “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?” Don’t you just love the liberal virtue of tolerance?
Kari Norgaard is professor of climate change at the University of Oregon. At a recent London conference she called forskeptics to be viewed as “racists” and climate scepticism as a “sickness” needing to be “treated”. And the infamous Climategate emails scandal revealed key contributors to the UN IPCC reports threatening science editors, burying data and sounding generally like Richard M. Nixon at his most paranoid.
Surely we can expect better from government-sponsored officials? Apparently not. The above mentioned Professor Norgaard has recently urged President Obama to “ignore democracy”and act on climate via executive fiat. She also backed Obama’s appointment of John P. Holdren – an avowed eugenist who has called for a “planetary regime” to enforce abortions and mandatory sterilization programs – as his senior advisor on science and technology issues. Eugenist? Ah, enforced population control. Isn’t that what the German National Socialists were most famous for practising? Not to mention Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot – leftists all – of course.
In 2007, US EPA chief, Michael T. Eckhart was exposedas authoring an email threatening to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. In April this year, a senior Obama-appointee to the EPA boastedthat the agency’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers – the people without whom all modern society would grind to a halt, by the way.
Let’s sum up for a moment: burning houses, threats to life, limb, business, destroying careers, inflammatory rhetoric, deception, lies and preventing free speech. The message from the eco-fascist Left is resolute: don’t mess with us, or else. These are not guys Joe Public would want to break bread with.
And we should also be clear about this: fascism per se has its roots in the beliefs and ideology of the radical Left, not as is often portrayed, the Right, radical or otherwise. German National socialism (it still exists), communism, even Islamism, all favour Big Government, centralized power and control, the subversion of democratic processes and, especially, the restriction of liberty and free speech.
If fascism in any guise doesn’t get what it wants, it has always sought ways of grabbing power first by bullying others to keep silent, then asserting the need to “put democracy on hold”.
Big Government eh? Ja og jo større en regering er jo mere kompleks og uigennemskuelig er den også for vælgerne, som derfor må slukke lyset så de ikke distraheres af det de kunne tænkes at læse.