Posts Tagged ‘propaganda’

Moulding Young Minds: US Public Schools Preaching the Virtues of War On Iran

December 18, 2012

Pat3_color

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Dec 18, 2012

What exactly are we teaching your children?

I remember my history lessons in school. Among many things, I can recall Normandy, Patton’s march through France and the Battle of the Bulge, Korea, Vietnam and how about the millions of deaths on – as well as off, the fields of battle throughout history.

All in all, it was a tale of battles won and lost, and as was rightly put by my junior high school teacher – a tale of caution for future generations. But as young students, we were never taught to idiosyncrasies of ‘war-gaming’ a conflict in the future.

Nor can I recall getting lessons in school about using various aspects of asymmetrical warfare to encircle an enemy, or how admirable and clever it is to deploy terrorist units to bomb a country in order to ‘soften it up’ from within.

Unbeknownst to many people, there are school teachers who are delivering pro-war propaganda, indoctrinating young children with violent globalist military stratagem selling the concept of an inevitable war on the people of Iran as well as anyone else deemed as ‘Axis’ powers in relation to western central planning.

Interestingly, and quite horrific in fact, when challenged by his young (and extremely bright) female student over her idea of obtaining from a western pre-emptive intervention against Iran, the teacher addressing these students laid down a nonnegotiable maxim stating:

“… one of the rules (in this discussion) is you can’t do nothing”.

The female student followed his NLP intellectual diversion by rightly pointing out to him:

“But we (the US) are the only country in the world that’s ever used nuclear weapons”.

To which the teacher replies sharply:

“That’s irrelevant.”

It appears also towards the end of the video, that the class was being monitored by the principal’s office, who then summoned the student in question to the office. Orwellian – in the extreme.

This is the generation of children who may be asked – or drafted in to fight a coming war with Iran and others – so is this part of the indoctrination of future soldiers? Maybe.

Certainly here, it’s safe to say that teachers are grooming the next generation of compliant consumer spectators with some heavy indoctrination.

Watch the classroom exchange recorded by the student:

Immediately, the first thing that’s come to mind here is remembering what Cosby Stills and Nash tried to tell us – all those decades ago…

….

Advertisements

The Problem With Hillary’s ‘New Propaganda’ Program

December 4, 2012

https://i0.wp.com/4.bp.blogspot.com/-GXu9avcpohM/T7a_ghs-JkI/AAAAAAAAAFA/c4tP3ocYYLI/s1600/hillary_evil_smile.JPG

21st Century Wire

Should our government be spending our money on propaganda? Some political elite think so…

Hillary Clinton wants to be US President in 2016, but will Americans finally see through her political shape-shifting facade in time?

Watch this brilliant report which perfectly deconstructs power-hungry Clinton’s overlord-type view of global society…

….

Establishment Getting Desperate: ‘Gov’t black-ops must be more transparent’

November 2, 2012

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire

It seems that the alternative media is winning the hearts and minds of the public, and critical thinking is on the rebound.

This is evidenced by the establishment’s latest panick episode, led by UK social engineering and gatekeeper organisation, Demos (calling themselves a ‘think tank’) who, we are told, are very, very concerned about those ‘conspiracy theorists’. Demos and their ilk, are running out of bullets.

According to Demos, the public’s awareness of false flag attacks and other destructive black operations – is ‘dangerous’. Make no mistake about it, they’re panicking.

Demos are now afraid that too many people are waking up to what most people outside of the the US and British information prisons already know – that both 7/7 and 9/11 were inside jobs, orchestrated by elements within the state structure and other foreign bodies – executed in order to align public opinion with various hard-sell state and globalist agendas, like the global war on terror. And to the victor goes the spoils.

Demos change agent, Jamie Bartlett, making sure we think the right thoughts, express the right ideas.

The reality in 2012 is that social nudging organisations like Demos are so hamstrung by their own narrow band of dialogue, that any desperate social gate-keeping or thought police initiatives are immediately visible to the adult public as a vain attempt by a confused establishment to sell a bankrupt version of reality. That’s why Demos are focusing more and more children, a much easier medium to mould mentally.

Collectivist and socially subversive outfits like Demos and Common Purpose, along with The Royal United Services Institute, are now working overtime to pump-up the mythology of a new, growing threat – apparently, thousands of home-grown, ‘domestic terrorists’. A number of persons will naturally be considered domestic terrorists today – truth activists, angry child abuse activists, G20 protestors, labour union strikers, suffrage protestors, slave revolts, veterans against the wars, whistleblowers, free speech activists and parents who home school their kids. Now can you get a picture Demos is trying to paint for our Brave New World.

They’re trying like hell to sell one version of reality to the public, and asking us to ignore all the evidence opposing, as well as the countless discrepancies within – the official explanations we are force-fed.

What they mean here is that basically anyone who subscribes what Demos and others deem to be ‘conspiracy theories’, or anyone who dares challenge the might of the state – is dangerous to the state.

So, the object of this game is that the state will have the monopoly on conspiracy theories in the future.

The secret services must become more transparent if they are to halt the spread of damaging conspiracy theories…”


Ian R. Crane’s response to the Demos social gatekeepers

The UK already has thousands of government agencies, as well as dozens of ‘security’ and intelligence agencies, some of which are even spying on each other. To think that any of these would embrace transparency is a bit of a joke.

The whole concept of transparency goes against the definition of secrecy. We can’t even lift D-Notices on paedophiles in government shielded by Tony Blair from 2003, or FOA requests on David Kelly and so many others, how can anyone really expect the security services to be ‘more transparent’? It’s a massive joke.

If they go ‘transparent’, it will be Hollywood-style, or it will simply be disinformation.

In fact, the discourse is so thin in their argument, that one can only deduce that the prime function of the Demos-sponsored article below is an attempt to manage the public’s perception of events like 7/7 and 9/11, clearly a losing battle in face of so much damning evidence. In the end, that’s what Demos is being paid to do.

See for yourself how the social engineers are currently working in Britain…
….

Secret services ‘must be made more transparent’

Rachel Shields
Independent

The secret services must become more transparent if they are to halt the spread of damaging conspiracy theories and increase trust in the Government, claims a leading think tank.

Demos, a thought police targeting children in schools. Notice the logo.

A Demos report published today, The Power of Unreason, argues that secrecy surrounding the investigation of events such as the 9/11 New York attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London merely adds weight to unsubstantiated claims that they were “inside jobs”.

It warns of the dangers posed by conspiracy theories – from hindering counter-terrorism work by reducing public trust in the Government, to encouraging new alliances between extremists based on such theories – and recommends the Government fight back by infiltrating internet sites to dispute these theories.

Gov’t photoshopped 7/7 bombers in to make their fake case.

Jamie Bartlett, the author of the report, said: “Less-secret services could make Britain safer. The more open the Government is, the harder it is for extremist groups to make stories out of silence.”

The Royal United Services Institute warned last week that the UK may soon face a new wave of home-grown terrorists, when criminals who have been targeted by jihadists while in prison are released.

Demos also recommends that the National Security Council publish an annual report of its proceedings and that it makes details of counter-terrorism investigations available to selected individuals.

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has prepared the groundwork in being more open by having a review of counter-terrorism powers.”

Source: The Independent

Desperate Measures: Anti-Islamic Advertisements to Hit NYC

September 25, 2012

RT
20 September, 2012

Anti-Islamic advertisements will go up across New York City’s subway system next week after a federal judge ruled that the city’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority could not legally refuse to host the signs on the basis of “demeaning” language.

As early as next Monday, ten NYC subway stations will showcase adverts declaring, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” The campaign was created by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), an organization considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center watch group.

Pamela Geller, the executive director of the AFDI, stands by her signage despite rampant complaints circulating before the campaign has even begun.

“I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages,” Geller tells Sky News.

Geller has long advocated against so-called “Islamist propaganda” in America and has campaigned in the past to call for the shutting down of a Washington, DC museum exhibit that highlighted Muslim contributions to science. The installation was declared “Best Touring Exhibit” by the Museum Heritage Awards in 2011, but Geller claimed “It has indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of children into a rosy and romanticized view of Islam that makes them less appreciative of their own culture’s achievements and more complacent about Islamization in the West.”

For her overt actions waged against Islamic culture, the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League has said Geller “fuels and fosters anti-Muslim bigotry in society.”

Those ideals will be brought to New York subway stations next week despite a legal battle that ended in July with a Manhattan federal judge agreeing that the First Amendment allowed Geller to have her ads run in the metro system.

“I live in America and in America we have the first amendment,” Geller tells Sky News.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, responded to the outlet by condemning Geller’s actions, but agreeing with the federal judge’s decision regardless.

“Our basic position is that the first amendment means that everyone is free to be a bigot or even an idiot like Pamela Geller,” Hooper tells Sky. “We wish she wasn’t provoking and inciting hatred, but in America that’s her right.”

“We encourage Muslims to exercise the same right to publicly denounce such adverts. The real danger is the spread of hatred in our society, which can lead to attacks on innocent people.”

On the website for the AFDI, Geller critiques a journalist who has labeled her efforts as anti-Muslim, insisting that such a label “implies that every Muslim is a jihadi who wants to impose sharia and ‘eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within and sabotage its miserable house.’”

Defending her advertisements to KQED News last month, Geller said it was right to refer to Islamic worshipers as “savage,” because “any targeting of innocent civilians is savagery.”

“Mothers and children on a bus are targeted, and that is savagery. Kidnapping and murdering is savagery. The U.S. does not conduct war that way, and neither does Israel. Now, there is sometimes the accidental death of civilians, which is far different than the targeting of innocent civilians,” she said.

Previously, Geller told Huffington Post of her ads, “If I had my way, they’d be in every city in the United States of America and if I can get the funding, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

She has successfully campaigned to have the adverts included in San Francisco and is all but certain to expand to New York in the coming days. In California, San Francisco’s transit authority promised to donate the $3,400 Geller spent on advertising fees to the Human Rights Commission.

War Inc – Inside the Pentagon’s Psychological Operation to Suck the Masses into Their War Machine

August 15, 2011

By Alexander Higgins
August 15, 2011

From games to movies, the Pentagon spends billions to entice the American youth into giving up their lives in the name of military service.

As the U.S. economy remains on a consistent downward spiral, one thing the U.S. Government is never shy to invest endless cash in is the Pentagon. While the masses suffer pension cutbacks, 46 million Americans live off food stamps  and Americans across the nation are relegated to living in “tent city” homeless camps the government pumps trillions of dollars into illegal perpetual wars. Perhaps even more inexcusable is the the pumping millions of dollars into luring in the young population of America into enrolling into the military, all to support the political corruption of globalist’s international banking cartel.

RT’s Anastasia Churkina looks at some of those mesmerizing techniques, and what kind of effect they have had on those fit to serve

Here’s another example of how the war machine’s propaganda is being used to target our children…

                      Mike Huckabee’s 9/11 Cartoon Movie

Curious how the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history will be taught to future generations? Here’s a clue via presidential candidate Huckabee, who’s hawking an educational 9/11 cartoon at $9.95 a pop. No mention of the two wars we entered into in the aftermath or even Osama bin Laden’s stated reason for the attacks (the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). Refinery29 writes:

“There’s now a 9/11 cartoon movie courtesy of Mike Huckabee, co-founder of Learn Our History, a for-profit company whose mission is to get kids excited and educated about history. The first initiative, an animated DVD series, has flicks on subjects like the American Revolution, and, perhaps more tellingly, “The Reagan Revolution.” The September 11th cartoon really explains, according to the literature, “How the ongoing War on Terror protects Americans at home and American ideals abroad.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper activates ‘Operation Mockingbird’ in Egypt

February 3, 2011

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Feb 3, 2011

In the latest cycle of news coverage out of Egypt, CNN’s award-winning TV personality Anderson Cooper, along with his CNN crew, claim to have been attacked by a violent mob of pro-Mubarak supporters in Cairo today. Far from constituting any real drama, his report does offer viewers an insight into how intelligence operatives within the media industrial complex are able to disseminate strategic talking points to millions of people at one time.

Following CNN’s Anderson Cooper highlighting a series of key talking points for today’s news cycle- one of which appears to be, “We (the western press) were attacked by a pro-Mubarak mob…”, we can witness what came next- the near clockwork precision that followed as this talking point was successfully recycled through hundreds of news feeds and Youtube video clips. Cooper also claims to have been “punched in the head ten times…” giving the impression that he was somehow beaten within an inch of his life whilst helping hoist the torch of freedom in Egypt.

What this episode also achieves is to reinforce amongst Americans and Europeans the subtle idea that the masses in the Middle East, or in this case the ‘pro-Mubarak mob’, somehow dislike the western press, or the “free press” as Americans and Europeans often like to see themselves in media terms. Already, western media pundits are busy mulling over ‘regime change’ options for replacing President Mubarak. The eventual result will likely be read from the top of a list of various agency objectives from the Anglo-American and Israeli Axis.

One might also suspect that all the major news networks and newspapers are in collusion together because with every major domestic and world event, all the identical taking points seem to appear in near synchronicity. It’s almost as if there could be some covert government sponsored program in place which makes this machine work so efficiently.

   CNN and Anderson Cooper: Operation Mockingbird in action.

In reality, such a program does in fact exist and it has a name. Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence US domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s.

The sophisticated use of planting specific ideas and popular talking points like these serve to formulate a certain public opinion in the West. These opinions are set out in the orders and directives to agents of influence working within Operation Mockingbird and are subsequently passed down the chain of command within key media organisation to achieve results. One might ask the question: what are those results? Once the West’s public opinion is compatible with the foreign policy and economic interests of the Anglo-American and Israeli Axis powers then the said Western government will begin to enact their foreign strategy in real terms. This could include either regime change, a region’s territorial realignment, or to consolidate certain lucrative energy or geological interests into the hands of Anglo-American corporations. It could even be to maintain an air of instability in the region.

Decades on, Mockingbird is still an incredibly comprehensive CIA and State Department joint program where agents of influence are continually recruited and groomed for key positions on editorial boards of all major newspapers, magazines and most importantly, TV networks throughout the United States and certainly abroad too. Cooper, the silver haired award-winning CNN anchor, has been outed as being a former trainee in the CIA. Although it is not clear if he ever became a full-scale agent, many will certainly speculate that he has indeed infiltrated the high levels of journalism and is certainly in a position to mold public opinion– in classic the Edward Bernays tradition.

Operation Mockingbird

CNN's star anchorman Anderson Cooper was tapped by the CIA early in his career (PHOTO: CNN)

As a result of the Frank Church investigations, a Congressional Report published in 1976 states:

“The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.”

This particular frenzied chase featuring Anderson Cooper, which CNN managed to shoot with avant guard, obtuse camera angles, and shaky blurring action, through the streets of the rioting mob in Cairo, only serves to remind people of other infamous and often contrived media scenes.

Perhaps the greatest known example of this was the fake toppling of Saddam Hussien’s statue in Iraq, a theatrical event which was meant to signify the liberation of the Iraqi people by the hand of the United States. After originally reporting this story in exactly the same way as CNN, FOX and ABC, years later producers at MSNBC were finally allowed to run a half-hearted, mostly apologetic expose on the Saddam statue hoax, an effort which had no impact at all on the status of the ongoing occupation.

   Years later, MSNBC decided to finally expose the obvious hoax in 2003.

Not so long ago, it was a cartel of major networks, including CNN, who worked tirelessly around the clock in order to promote Gulf Wars 1 & 2. In fact, producers at CNN thought it so important to paint events according to its Operation Mockingbird directives that it staged a faux missile attack from a broadcast studio- complete with blue screen back drops, potted palm trees and fake air-raid sirens. Normally, a stunt like this would discredit the network and force its producer and board to resign, none of which happened as a result.

    CNN’s notorious staged missile attack broadcast in 1991.

Well known by now are the major networks’ coordinated effort from late 2002 and through to March 2003, successfully floated the idea in the minds of Americans and British, that there were ” WMD’s in Iraq…”.  This was done in advance in order to secure the public perception, tilling the soil of public opinion for the Coalition’s imminent invasion. There is no doubt this focused media effort had cemented this idea into the minds of viewers across the US, and without it, the present ten year military occupation of Iraq could not have been possible.

As much as CNN has tried to paint the angry mobs in Egypt as enemies of the free press, recent events on US soil, namely the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, demonstrate that the real free press operating inside the US will not be attacked by angry mobs, rather it will be the National Guardsmen, Police and State Troopers (sometimes dressed as anarchists) who will supply the aggression. This of course, is the current state of affairs within the US itself- and one which networks like CNN itself refused to cover at all.

As a parting footnote, one might also marvel at CNN’s staged chase scene through the angry (and allegedly) ‘Pro-Mubarak’ mob, a scene that almost bordered on comic relief as CNN’s Cooper could be heard helplessly screaming phrases in English like “calm down!” back to a mob of obvious Arabic-speaking Egyptians. All of this provided great television theatre- and will no doubt net Anderson Cooper some new journalism award before the year’s end.

The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange

August 27, 2010

Update: Nov 18, 2010
Death to the Chicago Climate Exchange ($7.40 to a nickel per CO2 ton, the market has spoken)

By Patrick Henningsen
Editor
Aug 28th 2010
21st Century Wire

Plagued by a free fall in carbon emissions prices and the perennial failure of Washington to pass any binding Cap and Trade Bill, it seems that the Chicago Climate Exchange is on its last leg, announcing that it will be scaling back its operations.

Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX, is North America’s sole voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas trading and carbon “offset” projects in North America and Brazil. Rueters reported on Aug 11th that Intercontinental Exchange Inc, the operating body who purchased the struggling CCX in May this year, will be scaling back major operations this month, a move that includes massive layoffs. This is likely due to the complete market free-fall of their only product… carbon emissions.

Anthony Watts from the climate watchdog website Watts Up With That posts a graph from the CCX which shows carbon prices dropping like a stone, bottoming out this week at the embarrassingly low figure of 10 cents per tonne. Compare this to trading prices during its brief hay day in May and June 2008 where market highs reached $5.85 and $7.40 respectively, and you can say that most investors will be evaluating carbon as one of today’s more worthless commodities.

What a difference a year makes. It’s been nine months since the world watched the bottom drop out of a much-hyped UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen back in Dec 2009, with its neo-colonial and UN Global Government taxation agenda exposed within the first days of the summit. One of the keystones of the Climate Change alarmist movement was its audacious attempt to create a functioning market by monetizing the atmospheric trace gas known as CO2. Since last year, a number of scandals like Climategate have penetrated mainstream conversation, putting a rather awkward limp in the once nimble Man-Made Global Warming movement. Hence, apocalyptic frenzies and fears have dissipated and carbon prices around the world have continued to be pummelled by the market.

Monetizing CO2: the carbon neutral dream that no country could ever afford.

A Financial ‘Boondoggle’

Unlike most real markets, the carbon market was created by banks and governments so that new investment opportunities could seamlessly dovetail with specific government policies. It’s a fantasy casino based on a doctrine of pure science fiction. Certainly, gaming the system has always been at the top on the agenda of the new green eco-trader. Most people, investors included, might innocently ask the fundamental question, “what’s the point of having a CO2 commodities market?” The answer to that question should be obvious by now, and you can certainly look to the initial stakeholders in the various international climate trading bodies for a ‘Who’s Who’ list of individuals that have actively been pushing the global warming concept from its inception.

As American’s own CCX nears total collapse, climate alarmists and their vested partners are pinning their hopes on Europe and Climate Exchange Plc. With most European countries happily singing from the same EU song sheet, institutional investment in the carbon market has seen a slightly more sustained existence. Europe’s socialized historical habit of subsidizing anything and everything means that it has been a better safe haven for something as radical as a carbon market. Many financial analysts would say that carbon requires a relatively steady price of around €40 a tonne in order to spur industrial investment in cleaner technologies, but unfortunately, Copenhagen failed and the announcements of emissions cuts are not coming as expected. Perhaps the reality gap is beginning to set in between governments’ political capital in climate change and the peoples’ ability to believe in global warming. Either way, the market will not be able to deliver such lofty figures, which is why real investors are getting out of the carbon market in 2010.

The front end of this game of ‘supply and demand’ is heavily reliant on governments making lofty announcements about future emissions targets. The logic here is that cutting emissions increases demand for carbon allowances. In the absence of such a restriction of the market, it was expected that the price would fall, and naturally that’s exactly what happened. In 2008, it cost European traders €31 to pump out a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, but today it will set you back about half that at €15. You will be hard pressed to find any financial wizard/pundit giving a sermon on a bullish carbon market in the near future- it’s just not happening anymore.

On the back end of the game, things are a bit shadier to say the least- some might call it a recipe for corruption. The industrial monopoly power giants and other green businesses who are ‘well connected’ are of course, being allocated free EU Carbon Allowances until 2012, but from 2013 some sectors will have to pay for 20% of their allowances (those with weaker political influence in Brussels), rising each year to 60% in 2020. Many government/power company ‘green initiatives’ will automatically result in high energy price to consumers, which naturally means guaranteed profit increases for those same corporations (see Enron).

Off-set scam

Carbon trading is underpinned by an equally dodgy product called ‘carbon off-sets”, most of which are taken on face value by the buyer. Not based on an actual ton of carbon emitted, rather governing agencies are issuing certificates for a fictional commodity of emissions not emitted. A rather wild concept. Worse than this however, it is near impossible to verify which of these thousands of so-called off-set projects in the developing world are actually legitimate. In the coming years, we will no doubt see or read a number exposes detailing the depths of this fantastic green scam.

Get in early and then get out

The formula: create an investment vehicle, hype the new commodity, buy low, watch share prices rise, sell high. The result is money, lots of it. In some cases it’s been about driving up the share prices of companies Gore’s group has already invested in. The fact that the original shareholders of the CCX have already bailed out with their sale to Intercontinental Exchange Inc. for a modest $600 million earlier this year only reinforces the reality that its creators have already lost faith in their elaborate invention. Likewise, the self-styled leaders of the climate change crusade Maurice Strong and Al Gore have already cashed in carbon fortunes already, whilst other active politicians like US President Barrack Obama, and United Nations IPCC Chief Rajendra K. Pachauri (arguably the world’s wealthiest retired railway engineer) are engaged in similar play with their own financial interests in the Carbon Markets.

Like all government rigged quasi-commercial schemes, the only real beneficiaries are the initial shareholders- a special inner circle who are naturally ahead of the curve knowing about legislation and policy before it comes into existence. They are sometimes called the great and the good, the in-crowd, or the smartest men in the room (again, see Enron). Of these, almost all have jumped ship out of the market while their preferred shares– or in the case of the larger energy and manufacturing monopolies, their gratis “carbon allowances” given to them free by their governments- are still worth something. If you’re on the inside, it’s simple: get in early, make money and then get out.

   If you are in any doubt as to the level and expense of climate change propaganda, just watch this promo for Copenhagen.

   Another well-craft propaganda piece that cynically employs a child actor to deliver the message of certain doom.

Climate change based on science fiction

Pointing out the obvious is always a painful thing in the world of human affairs. The real reason for the complete and total failure of the concept behind trading an atmospheric gas like CO2 is something few within the green block will dare to even mention now, and it’s the same reason why the whole movement will go down in history as one of the most flamboyant efforts in the history of economics. It’s not just hubris. The whole idea behind making CO2 a commodity was to make it expensive and thus reduce the amount produced, which would (they hoped) reduce the effect of anthropogenic(man-made) global warming, or ‘climate change’ as it’s now commonly referred to. There was only one massive problem with this equation- there has been no global warming since 1998. So despite the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions spent on research and computer models addressing this possibility, no scientist or body has been able to show that man’s CO2 contribution has had any effect on the global temperature. Another massive blind spot for climatists is their almost religious denial that the sun might have any effect on the earth’s climate (studies show that it does, of course)- a major sore spot in any debate on global warming.

Placed in its proper historical context, we can see that the man-made global warming movement was a classic merger of radical Collectivist ideas and huge financial opportunities. Men like Maurice Strong looked for their moral positions to be anchored by a small group of hand-picked ‘scientific authorities’, a latter day technocracy if you will. On the opportunist side we also see those same scientists who have made  their careers, many millions of dollars over the last decade alone, on grants to prove that global warming was somehow happening. Other financial opportunists will include Al Gore, scores of companies like Carbon Fund and a multitude of charities soliciting millions in donations to save the planet, all of whom were hoping to cash in on this non-event until its financial opportunities eventually die out.

To date, the timeline of the planned green economy has moved at an impressive pace. If you step back and marvel at the timing and combination of the climate change movement and carbon trading business it’s enough to make you dizzy. Advanced positioning promised fortunes for those with inside knowledge before the global warming PR cycle went orbital in 2006. Never has the world seen a more stunning collusion between government(include the UN here) and big business, a tango that makes fascist enterprises like Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain look like mere student internships.

Still hoping for some silver lining in this otherwise cloud of failure, most diehard green activists are laying the blame on governments for giving away too many free carbon coupons in recent years. Certainly there is a valid economic point there, but greens were all too eager to get into bed with Wall Street and the Fabian Socialists in order to realize their dream of a new utopia. The current color-blind global financial system based on derivatives, futures and sub-prime gambling products will eventually take down the carbon market altogether, as speculators prey on untapped markets, selling more worthless paper to an ever decreasing naive minority. In the wake of the dot com boom and the housing boom, Wall Street certainly tried to make environmentalism sexy and trendy for investors, but we can see now that the results speak for themselves- CO2, a penny stock for kids. “Roll up, roll up. Anyone want a tonne of CO2 for 10 cents?”

In the end it’s just another age-old tale of big business, grovelling academics, power politics… and easy money(see also: slush fund). So it doesn’t require an expert to tell you that the carbon market was doomed to fail from the beginning. Let’s just hope it doesn’t require another Wall Street-style bailout.

—-

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: EXCLUSIVE VIDEO REPORTS FROM COPENHAGEN 2009

SHORT FILM: “HOPENHAGEN”

—-

About the author: Patrick Henningsen is a writer, filmmaker, communications consultant and managing editor of 21st Century Wire.

Contact: pj.henningsen @gmail.com
—-

 

RELATED NEWS…

Final Collapse of the Carbon Market in US 

—-

A New Independent Poll is Needed on Iran

August 23, 2010

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
August 23, 2010

Infowars.com Editor Kurt Nimmo’s recent piece entitled Corporate Media Poll Claims Majority of Americans Support Iran Attack, raises a number of key and timely points on the quality of Rasmussen’s poll sampling and whether such a poll actually represents American public opinion on this particular issue. But let’s take this a step further and try to construct our own independent poll on the Iranian question, one which will more accurately reflect real public feelings on this impending geopolitical face-off.

Far from being objective, the Rasmussen Poll was designed to lend support an existing policy- to test the public waters on a Pentagon-planned pre-emptive military strike on Iran. The actual results produced are far from useful in measuring the country’s true public opinion on the matter, much less America’s willingness to add a new front to its already bloated global “war on terror”. In addition to this, their poll  contains some obviously loaded questions- questions which solicit amateur opinions on facts which polling participants are not even privy to know one way or the other. The Rasmussen Poll contained questions like:

1. Iran is an enemy?

2. Iran’s uranium enrichment program is developing nuclear weapons?

3. If Israel attacks Iran, the United States should lend a helping hand?

Clearly, polling participants cannot have an opinion on a factual matter like whether or not Iran’s uranium enrichment program is developing nuclear weapons. Therefore, the results from such questions are fairly useless, unless, however, Rasmussen is trying to measure the level of  the public’s disinformation on that issue (there is a touch of irony there). The last question is particularly loaded in itself, casually characterizing US support of Israel as a mere “helping hand”, but not considering for a second whether or not Israel’s pre-emptive strike is wrong in the first place. The US mindset has become so conditioned in accepting Israeli policy objectives (regardless of their effects on real US interests), therefore this is reflected in standard language we see throughout corporate media polling. Here we can see the way in which these types of mainstream corporate  polls are used to reinforce and construct a simplistic streamlined  groupthink on very complexed issues.

Spreading more democracy: grown men in Washington are getting desperate to play with their new toys again.

By asking a series of loaded and pejorative questions as they have done, Rasmussen can only produce poll results akin to that of an uneducated angry mob, thus containing very little useful information which can be used later in intelligent political discourse on the subject. Rather, these type of polls are used as supports within a larger propaganda exercise.

The painful lessons of 2001 and 2003 should be clear by now- that the US and its allies can and will go to war on the basis of fabricated intelligence and will do so without a declaration from Congress, preferring instead to use a House Joint Resolution Authorizing a Use of Force against the country it wishes to attack. This has already been set in motion by HR 1553: Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to “defend itself” with a pre-emptive attack– you can’t get any more Orwellian than that. Nonetheless, it goes without saying that certain public opinion polls are key tools used by Washington and her major media outlets for bolstering any pre-emptive strike which is on the drawing board.

Alex Jones has commissioned polls in the past on very important issues, the results of which have been valuable in building a case for common sense. Of all the issues that are facing Americans directly today, none is potentially more hot than a US or US-supported pre-emptive strike on Iran. It would certainly be a valuable exercise should Infowars.com consider commissioning its own independent Zogby Poll into whether Americans really consider Iran a national security threat. A new poll should contain questions which gauge relevant public opinions and not whether participants believe general hearsay, rumours of possible intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, or general mainstream media propaganda designed to prime the war pump- all of which were demonstrated by Rasmussen’s latest hit piece on Iran.

An independent poll should probe into the essential and fundamental questions about Iran including:

1. Would you support a pre-emptive US strike on Iran?

2. Is Iran a genuine threat to US national security?

3. Do you think that the Iranian threat is being exaggerated?

4. Do you see parallels between the current campaign to characterize Iran as a WMD threat and the previous case against Iraq?

5. Should Israel be launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran?

6. Is the US obligated to support Israel if it carries out a pre-emptive strike on Iran?

With so much at stake, we cannot afford to get the fundamentals of this conversation wrong. What could be worse than another fake war that will cost our economy billions(trillions?) and our morality a priceless fortune? The conversation about Iran must be set straight on record and free from the obvious spin we have become so used to in The New American Century. Together, conscious members of the alternative media must keep working to reframe the conversation based on the principles of critical thinking, rather than the predictable mainstream media’s popular innuendo that caters to the whims of the mob.

One would hope that better and more intelligent polling might influence better and more intelligent foreign policy.