|
|
Post by gdfernan on May 2, 2009 23:59:39 GMT
Nick Cohen, a respected British journalist writes about the swine flu in the Guardian (a not so respected British newspaper) and talks about how to create a panic. The 3 conditions he identifies (with the help of a Professor of computing) are an exact match for the AGW scare. Nick Cohen writes: I spoke to Anthony Finkelstein, professor of software systems engineering at University College London, who was one of the few computer specialists to speak out about the tens of billions wasted on protecting IT systems against the phantom menace of the millennium bug. He said then that three criteria needed to be met for a panic to take hold:1. the public must be confronted with a threat it does not understand {The scientific basis for AGW with all the formulas and equations is difficult for the average layperson to understand} 2 . the media must be ready to go wild {no need to elaborate} 3. there must be a vested interest promoting a scare {Al Gore, James Hansen, all the pseudo intellectual climate researchers and campaigners and the carbon trading quacks} The comments were with reference to the Y2K panic. However, Y2K had a definite time limit. After Jan 1st, 2000 no one bothered about it. However, the AGW is an openended scam that can be perpetuated for at least another generation. The full article is here. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/03/nick-cohen-swine-flu-pandemic |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2009 1:12:45 GMT
As #1 and #2 are 'givens' in most instances - the real driver here is #3.
There were many reasons for starting the panic - but the main driver is money (aka funding).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on May 3, 2009 5:29:51 GMT
...the main driver is money (aka funding). Agreed, but I think you have half the case (that of John Stuart Mill): "For instance, Mr. James Mill takes the principle that all men desire Power; his son, John Stuart Mill, assumes that all men desire Wealth mainly or solely." George Jacob Holyoake: 'The History of Co-operation' (11). domain1041943.sites.fasthosts.com/holyoake/c_co-operation%20(11).htm "Wealth" will come from carbon taxes, speculation, continued funding and job security (while any "Wealth" or assets remain). "Power" will come from absolute control over ~50% of our energy (~90% if nuclear power is deemed "unsafe") and political allocation of carbon credits to the politically-favored (ala Waxman). There is nothing in the economy that does not require energy. "Power" can be extended to control where you can live, what (if anything) you may drive, how warm you can be in winter and how cool in summer, what and how much you can eat, how many children one may have, etc. If you think this is ridiculous, cast your memory back to the late '60s. The lunatic fringe then is now governmental policy. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2009 10:58:35 GMT
...the main driver is money (aka funding). Agreed, but I think you have half the case (that of John Stuart Mill): "For instance, Mr. James Mill takes the principle that all men desire Power; his son, John Stuart Mill, assumes that all men desire Wealth mainly or solely." George Jacob Holyoake: 'The History of Co-operation' (11). domain1041943.sites.fasthosts.com/holyoake/c_co-operation%20(11).htm "Wealth" will come from carbon taxes, speculation, continued funding and job security (while any "Wealth" or assets remain). "Power" will come from absolute control over ~50% of our energy (~90% if nuclear power is deemed "unsafe") and political allocation of carbon credits to the politically-favored (ala Waxman). There is nothing in the economy that does not require energy. "Power" can be extended to control where you can live, what (if anything) you may drive, how warm you can be in winter and how cool in summer, what and how much you can eat, how many children one may have, etc. If you think this is ridiculous, cast your memory back to the late '60s. The lunatic fringe then is now governmental policy. And of course Money equals Power Then you are at the mercy of the motives of the wealthy compare the activities of George Soros and Bill Gates Think of the motives of the people making huge money out of the invented trade in carbon-credits and what they will use that purchased power for. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2009 15:33:24 GMT
Modern politics is a rapid exercise where panic can be used to distract the people and politicians from reading too deeply into what is being proposed. "It must be done now or the 'world will drop over a precipice!!". And magician like the hand waving panic panic - distracts from the hand that is doing less welcome things that in calmer times would have created a considerable stir.
Therefore it is probably best to always mistrust a politician that cries panic and insists on an instant agreement. Repenting at leisure is not a happy experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 3, 2009 15:49:05 GMT
It's ironic that those quotations (at least the first two) contain a tad of fearmongering in themselves. Even more ironic that this is probably why these quotations have survived the passage of time.
Fearmongering is a way of attention seeking. People will pay more attention to an announcement that promises to affect them negatively. That's why scary headlines sell.
The media market is geared up to consumer demand. When the pig-flu thing broke, it was of course a race for every media channel trying to provide the most scary headline.
There's also a large number of people that enjoy being scared and another large number who enjoy scaring people. Why do people watch horror and disaster movies? There's no logical entertainment value in watching very bad things happening. I can only think that some people want to experience heightened emotional stress beyond the relatively dull everyday. Perhaps this is also similar to the motivation to participate in extreme sports.
So there are people who seek to be scared, people who like to scare others and of the remaining a lot of people who will nevertheless pay attention to anything that could affect them negatively.
So basically there's no need to invoke political conspiracy theories of governing overlords to explain the prevalance of fearmongering.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 3, 2009 15:53:46 GMT
Really, I'd like to hear your comparison here, and your take on their motives.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 3, 2009 15:58:11 GMT
It's ironic that those quotations (at least the first two) contain a tad of fearmongering in themselves. Even more ironic that this is probably why these quotations have survived the passage of time. Fearmongering is a way of attention seeking. People will pay more attention to an announcement that promises to affect them negatively. That's why scary headlines sell. The media market is geared up to consumer demand. When the pig-flu thing broke, it was of course a race for every media channel trying to provide the most scary headline. There's also a large number of people that enjoy being scared and another large number who enjoy scaring people. Why do people watch horror and disaster movies? There's no logical entertainment value in watching very bad things happening. I can only think that some people want to experience heightened emotional stress beyond the relatively dull everyday. Perhaps this is also similar to the motivation to participate in extreme sports. So there are people who seek to be scared, people who like to scare others and of the remaining a lot of people who will nevertheless pay attention to anything that could affect them negatively. So basically there's no need to invoke political conspiracy theories of governing overlords to explain the prevalance of fearmongering. Something that is taught in sales is that fear of loss is a greater motivator than opportunity to gain. People can put off an opportunity to gain, but fear motivates for immediate action. (of course, what is not taught is that fear only motivates short term.) So basically, there is every reason to think that politicians will invoke fear to gain what they want. It's not a conspiracy theory. It makes perfect sense, and fits the pattern we see continuously. Politicians (mostly lawyers in the US) are very well aware of how strong of a motivation fear is. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2009 17:03:59 GMT
Really, I'd like to hear your comparison here, and your take on their motives. Ascribing motives to the actions of the wealthy can be difficult. But with these two men with comparative riches (and one can only go by what is published): We have Bill Gates putting his money in support of medical research and the prevention and cures for malaria in Africa. He has actually cut his family out of the money which is now all in a Bill Gates Foundation George Soros is using his money to create more money and using what he has to support political web-sites and 'movements' such as Move-On.org . Some of us actually suffered losses when he crashed various currencies to make a profit. Your political views will color your views on which of these is spending money wisely. |
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on May 3, 2009 18:17:03 GMT
Kurt Vonnegut:
"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country."
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on May 4, 2009 0:00:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 4, 2009 2:01:02 GMT
However, "the love of money is the root of all evil". Your comparison of Gates and Soros is a great illustration. If money is the root of all evil, what is the root of money? Mike I think that was why the emphasis was added to the word love. That passage is often misquoted to leave out the word "love." And, as I understand, it is not really "all" in the sense that all evil is caused by money, but rather, the passage might be more accurately translated as "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." |
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on May 4, 2009 5:36:43 GMT
Mike,
Thanks for the Soros $ links! And, again, thanks for those great animations. ;D
In my opinion, the root of money is the human need to store value in a lasting and portable form. Currently, its lasting value is uncertain, but it remains portable since it can be sucked up by politicians.
"Who" gets to decide "too much"? As for myself, I'll hazard a couple of thoughts:
1. Who decides: The only one whose decision matters: one's self.
2. What is too much? What would I do to get money, and whether, in so doing, would I be loving my neighbor as myself?
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on May 4, 2009 18:43:34 GMT
I think that was why the emphasis was added to the word love. That passage is often misquoted to leave out the word "love." And, as I understand, it is not really "all" in the sense that all evil is caused by money, but rather, the passage might be more accurately translated as "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." And exactly who gets to determine if I love my money too much? Mike You'll have to answer that for me. Who gets to determine that for you? My point was in clarifying the (mis) quote. |
|
