‘Wanted’ campaign targets Climate Criminals at Paris summit
Avaaz publishes dossier on dirty energy lobbyists at Paris talks, calls for ministers to boycott lobbyists
The seven most insidious fossil fuel lobbyists in Paris to weaken attempts to agree a global climate deal have been named and shamed as ‘climate criminals’ in a dossier published by the global citizens movement Avaaz.
The group, which spearheaded last weekend’s climate marches which saw 785,000 people take to the streets globally, posted over a thousand ‘Wanted’ posters outside 5-star hotels in the French capital on Monday morning. The poster highlighting the seven most notorious dirty energy lobbyists unearthed from the list of more than 50,000 delegates at summit.
On Monday morning, Avaaz ‘Climate Cops’ will hand out flyers outside key Metro stations leading to the Le Bourget with photos of the lobbyists, who are expected to ramp up their efforts to derail a deal when ministers arrive this week to negotiate the deal.
Emma Ruby-Sachs, Acting Executive-Director of Avaaz says: “These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action, despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100% clean energy. Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants.”
Each of the seven named lobbyists is renowned for their backroom dealings to to stop the transition to clean energy and push the interests of dirty fossil fuels. Some have resorted to harassing climate scientists and even calling for them to be ‘publicly flogged’.
The lobbyists include:
- Benjamin Sporton, head of the World Coal Association
- Fiona Wild, representative of mining-giant BHP Billiton
- Marc Morano, whose trademark activity is to publish the email addresses of climate scientists to expose them to hate mail.
- Myron Ebell, director of US think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute known for receiving money from ExxonMobil
- Chris Horner, funded by the coal industry and known for “harassing” climate scientists in order to access to their email
- Bjorn Lomborg, previously backed by funders with links to the Koch brothers, he’s most known as the ‘delayer in chief’ when it comes to climate
- James Taylor, senior fellow at climate denial lobby group Heartland Institute
Examples of lobbyists’ far-reaching influence within climate meetings include The World Coal Association setting up shop next to the COP19 summit in Warsaw in 2013 to convince negotiators to embrace coal as a solution to climate change.
This resulted in the Warsaw Communiqué promoting clean coal, which has been deemed as “a myth” by National Geographic. At the COP17 in Durban in 2011, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (comprised of major fossil fuel and power companies) successfully lobbied for carbon credits for new coal plants.
With global warming a clear scientific reality, the world has become increasingly intolerant of the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to undermine climate science and climate legislation. The campaign comes off the back of recent cases cracking down on “climate criminals,” including the investigation into Exxon for allegedly lying to the public about the risk of climate change.
The dossier is published as part of Avaaz’s 100% Clean campaign, which has been backed by more than 3.6 million people.
Source: https://secure.avaaz.org/act/media.php?press_id=684
Posters: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_criminals/
Marc Morano made a statement by email:
Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of new ‘Climate Hustle’ film having its red carpet debut tonight in Paris: Climate Hustle tonight at the Cinéma du Panthéon at 7:30 PM.Morano statement: “Since the ‘wanted’ posters for me are all over Paris, I have relocated to a secure undisclosed location. I hope my trip to Paris for ‘Climate Hustle’ red carpet premiere will go better than JFKs trip to Dallas.”
UPDATE: Another photo showing the wanted posters:
From the New York Times:
Environmental activists pasted more than 1,000 “Wanted” posters outside luxury hotels here overnight, calling seven people who have ties to the fossil fuel industry or are skeptics of climate change “criminals.” The activists also distributed flyers with photographs of the seven.
“These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action,” said Emma Ruby-Sachs, acting executive director of Avaaz, the activist group that organized the stunt. “Ministers must listen to their people, not polluters, and refuse meetings with climate criminals who want to derail a deal the whole world wants,” she added.
Mr. Morano sent back a photograph of himself, looking mock-terrified, crouching next to one of the “Wanted” posters that had been posted in the Eighth Arrondissement.
“The posters are an exercise in silliness,” Mr. Morano said. “Climate skeptics are here promoting open debate and arguing to allow dissent. The idea that any alternative views amount to a ‘criminal’ perspective is obscene.”
…
Mr. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute, said in an email: “It is a shame that people must experience such vitriol and harassment when they make scientific arguments supported by scientific data. If such attacks must be made, however, I am glad it was my face that appeared on their posters. I will always be proud to stand up for free and open discourse and ultimate truth.”
The Heartland Institute is hosting a climate change conference of its own on Monday, at the Hotel California here. It posted on Twitter: “Eco-left activists put ‘Wanted’ posters outside our event space last night. We are not intimidated.”
Weather-Scary cult might as well list me on their poster and put a $10,000 Bounty on it.
I burn leaves, drive truck when/where I please, leave lights on at night, and think ManBearPig is a scam.
Not reporting things that go against the mantra of AGW is one example of the desperation the warmers are exhibiting. This takes it to a new level.
In the last week an independent body that monitors species that could be in danger of extinction has published the highest count of polar bears ever….20,000 – 31,000 with a mean average of 26,500 being the number that is most probable. Incredibly good news considering as there were only around 5,000 left in the mid-1940’s. Have you read or heard about it…anywhere?
Polar Bear International run by the activist scientists have not issued a comment…fortunately Susan Crockford of Polar Bear Science has let the world know. She has followed this up with news about the ice forming rather quickly this year in the Hudson Bay and what may be the ice coverage in Feb/Mar.
Yesterday she posted a fascinating article on the problems thick ice causes Polar Bear cubs in the Spring and states it as the main cause of cub mortality…rather than anything to do with a lack of ice.
Please read it…..just Google polarbearscience
I emailed it to a friend of mine who reads the Guardian and hangs on to everything the BBC say’s on pretty much any subject. A warmer bless him.
The article that Susan posted was very well received by my friend who put on his old Geography teacher hat and viewed it as very logical and felt that it improved his knowledge of the subject.
link to polarbearscience up there on the right and my Christmas presents of Eaten have arrived !
Bubba Cow on December 7, 2015 at 12:07 pm
– – – – – –
Bubba Cow
I got my electronic ‘Kindle for PC’ version of the book Eaten on December 2 and consumed it (pun intended of course) within 24 hours.
I really enjoyed it. It is in a style of writing which flows towards an easy read. I recommend it.
John
The thing I love about people in politics or who lecture us is how incredibly two faced and hypocritical. Priests caught molesting children or with prostitutes, Al Gore and his 4 mansions, Lear Jet and 800/month heated swimming pool. Kennedy’s complaining about wind farms outside his mansion and academics and company presidents who make millions/billions from hyping global warming, get huge government grants complaining about someone making $25,000 from some alleged “oil money.” Reading the scientific literature today one would think a substantial portion of the $20 billion research budget of the US government is going to global warming hype and these people complain about a few thousand. Pretty funny. Do they complain so much because their billions are threatened?
Plus he gave the go ahead to the coal companies to do mountain top removal when he was in the Senate.
3.6 million out of 7 billion? 0.005%? And I bet that are all climate scientists too.
Seriously, if that’s not intimidation, what is? Exactly what crime are they being accused of? The people who put that up, with the tacit consent of the government, is really a hate crime. In a civilized society you can’t do that. They are calling them criminals. If the government passes a law saying that my opposition to CAGW is a crime, then it becomes a matter of conscience whether I or anyone else continues to express that in violation of the law. And suffers the consequences.
There was a case in Massachusetts were a guy that didn’t participate in a rape, other than loudly and vocally urging others to do so, was just as guilty. These people with out due process and in clear violation of the right to express an informed opinion on a scientific matter are guilty of intimadtion, and if something were to actually happen, they would guilty whether it’s related or not. For instance a mugging or a robbery or my brakes fail on my vechile.
They can’t set themselves up as having passed a law and judging others on it.
Bjorn Lomborg? Really? An academic who believes in global warming? Jeesh. This is so 1984, so propoganda. Is it possible they don’t see the hypocrisy of their positions? It’s really amazing to me and sometimes I wonder are they doing all this and saying all these things simply to see if they can get a rise out of people? I mean they can’t be serious? I just can’t believe anybody believes the catastrophic global warming scenarios after 20 years of zero or minimal warming it must be obvious it is not going to meet their expectations of disaster? Practically everything they said will happen has been proved won’t happen.
Plankton to die from global warming: FALSE (recent study)
Polar Bears to die from global warming: FALSE (population up)
More extreme storms from global warming: FALSE
More storms from global warming: FALSE
Coral Reefs to die from global warming: FALSE (recent study)
More people die from warmer weather: FALSE (Lancet)
Less food in 2080 from global warming: FALSE (common sense)
More malaria from global warming: FALSE (see CRISPR gene)
Temps +3C in 2100 from 1945: FALSE
Temps +2C in 2100 from 1945: FALSE
Temps +1C in 2100 from 1945: Maybe, maybe not
I think the reason they are getting so upset is that people know it’s all overplayed hugely and there are no consequences. None of these predictions they made stood up to simple common sense. We all know the earth has been warmer than today before and nothing happened.
+10
Mighty fine list.
In classic form it looks like the paleoclimate patterns are trending to a colder climate starting in 2019/20.
Monty Python will make a comeback
+10 but mention of the temperature model forecast errors needs some highlighting
I actually have a list of some 40-50 Deceptions or Fails as I call them. There include Fails around the science and deceptions around the scientists and things they do or have said or have failed to say.
https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/failures-of-global-warming-models-and-climate-scientists/
Your list is very good. Thank you for keeping track. There’s more you could probably add. The only and I mean thing only that I disagree with is that you’ve stated that early on in the 20th century they said the sun was responsible for temperature rise, my understanding, according to the IPCC, is that the sun never varied and had no effect on temperatures, ever. Their whole focus even during ice ages was co2. There was only a couple of times when the planet froze to the equator or close, that they couldn’t explain.
Excellent compilation.
I believe that they accept that solar forcing was higher in the first half of the 20th century as partial explanation of the rise at that time. They had to choose solar sensitivity that are high to get the models to move because as you know co2 didn’t move much. However as you point out even with such adjustment computer models do not show the same level of warmth reached during that period even with enhanced solar forcing. So this is one of the biggest divergences in the models from the 100 year period to 2000.
Of course the models are fits to the data. Complex expensive fits. We’ve spent billions on these very complex programs which require supercomputers to run when much simpler models based on a few variables can do much better.
My point is that since we now know about the PDO cycle this explains a lot of the rise in that period which means they were wrong in their attribution during that period of co2 and solar forcing. I find it astonishing they don’t mention these failures since they are so important and reverse the logic of their conclusions about virtually everything. If they don’t know why or can’t model the variation in pre1950 temperatures then there is no basis for suggesting their models could model future temperatures. So this failure in attribution is by itself enough to discredit virtually all the models and climate science. Their inability for instance to be able to model the cooling of several degrees 300-400 years ago during the LIA and the subsequent warming means that there is no way they can confidently say that the warming from 1979-2000 was not simply a continuation of the warming that has gone on since the end of the LIA.
CO2 cannot be the cause since co2 is basically unchanged during this period prior to 1945 or so. This is why it is so critical to 1) deny the Lia or mwp existence in spite of written records, drawing and physical evidence and now numerous studies pointing out it was clearly a worldwide phenomenon. 2) deny that there is or was any problem with attribution.
Exactly…
Distinguished list .
By far it is better to be a truth-speaking climate denier than a filthy climate liar. Name and shame the liars.
COP, is that an abbreviation for ‘Criminals On Parole’? How about ‘Condemning Our Planet?’ or ‘Condescending Obnoxious Pissants’?
lol — yes.
The more their lies about global warming fail to bring people on board, A) the more dire their predictions become and B) the more like Naz|’s they act. Their calls for skeptics to be locked up, their calls for the UN to go after them, now “wanted posters”.
This is exactly how the Naz| party acted in 1930’s Germany. You go against the party, you were in trouble. You spoke out against the propaganda, they came after you. You either accepted what they said in silence, or you bought in to it.
I’ve heard some call for “reeducation camps”. Of course those are the extreme fringe, but they’re also “professors” in “schools”. So not all that “fringe” really. I think they were just running it up the old flag pole to see the response they got. If it was pretty well received, the call would go out. They’re also the ones that get caught up in the book burnings too.
The only thing missing right now is the Reichstag’s fire. But that’s coming…….
The personal behavior of about 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the actual average / person. Not surprising to anyone. But do you realize this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL (that’s right, ALL, it is simple algebra) U. S. CO2 emissions? Indeed, were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would decline 17% and OVERALL PLANETARY CO2 emissions would decline 2.7%. Yet the president has unilaterally implemented programs that allow this small group to continue to spew CO2 unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. Can any of you AGW folks explain this, please?
“last weekend’s climate marches which saw 785,000 people take to the streets globally”
Were the same people who are fudging the numbers from ground based weather reporting stations also in charge of determining the number of people who participated in the so called “climate marches”? These “marches” were an epic failure. So once again we get numbers that were completely fabricated from people who claim to be able to determine the average temperature of the entire planet within a few hundredths of a degree.
I watched the London march file past me as I stood outside Green Park tube (subway) station.
It was just a bunch of naive youth, old hippies and radical communists. The weather wasn’t good so most of them were clothed in plastic-based jackets of some sort. Plastic – the stuff made out of fossil fuels.
Members of the public were laughing at them.
Meanwhile, two streets away, London’s biggest shopping street, Oxford Street, was thronged with way more shoppers walking in and out of massive, brightly lit, energy sucking shops that had “carbon footrpints” the size of Texas. The people were quite rightly enjoying buying things with their hard-earned cash. They couldn’t give a sh#t about gorebull warming.
And more and more of these shoppers will be there every day for many years to come and none of them will give a sh#t about gorebull warming.
The climateers are wasting their time (and our taxes).
The criminals are the alternative energy subsidy scamers, among others, who are behind the global warming / climate change scam. They should all be going to jail for racketeering.
One would think that perhaps the French after two terrorist attacks in the last year, one specifically targeting dissent, would take a dim view of this call for mob violence against people expressing controversial views.
Nothing new for the Greens who terrorized, bombed, and murdered people all in the name of world peace. These are some seriously deluded people who believe any means justifies the end which is their view of what is right and wrong. Perfect useful idiots co-opted by the AGW pushers to carry their banner to force wealth redistribution on the world. A relatively small but effective and ruthless group that is well funded by the Socialist/Marxist/OneWorldGovernment believers. Europe is their breeding ground.
Mark L
Yup. Here’s one of them (from this thread at 9:11am today):
Jason
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/climate-skeptics-in-paris-branded-as-criminals-wanted-posters-go-up-in-the-city/#comment-2089650
Why is the behaviour of the liberal left always so disgusting? Probably because they haven’t grown up.
Liberalism is like acne – most grow out of it nut some are scarred for life!
Why take any notice of these shreeking children?
Ummm. What do these children want? If they don’t get their way… Attack. Slander. Sounds like fascism to me. (Antarctic ice has increased by 5% in last 3 years)
How do you go about lobbying a kool aid gulping leader anyway?
To RichardSCourtney at 10:23 a.m. The Nazis were not conservative. The name of their party was the Nationalist Socialist party. They were fascists like Mussolini of Italy. Theirs were not conservative principles like free markets, minimal government control, local control of schooling, etc. After all the good books written on the subject, it is disappointing that the perception continues.
Loren C. Wilson:
Please don’t be silly. The Naz1s were the far-right: you admit they were fascists and there is nothing further to the political right than fascism.
What they called themselves is not relevant. Do you think every so-called Democratic Republic s democratic?
Richard
Richard – Let this be your guide to political identity.
Big government socialists. Another way to spell “someone to stupid to spend his own money.”
The term ” Left wing & right wing ” came from the French Parliament in post revolutionary times , where the members on the right of the speaker advocated freedom of the individual , minimum state intervention & a system of meritocracy.
The members on the left wing wanted state control of everything & no individual freedoms .
The various factions of socialism [ Fascism & Communism etc ] were all great friends together with a common cause , until operation ” Barbarossa ” when they had a big fall out .
Thereupon Stalin issued a DIKTAT to all of his followers to in future separate the factions by calling the Fascist Socialists right wingers .
So anyone calling a Fascist a Right winger is just following Stalins orders .
.
DD More:
You quote the ultra-right Robert A. Heinlein (who wrote ‘Starship Troopers’ to explain and extol fascism) as saying
Well, yes, the far-right do believe that, and they use it as their excuse to impose their will on others by force.
Socialism is the ideology for people who oppose to the far-right taking all they can by any means they can for their own benefit.
Richard
Those of you arguing ism’s with Richard have fallen into his trap.
This Post is about the Paris summit on CAGW. the Alarmist cannot win the debate since their psuedo-science iis founded in fear and guilt rather than science. So it is an old Alinsky trick, To freeze, name and demonize your opposition hence the wanted posters.
Richard is deploying another Alinsky trick: If you can’t win the argument change the debate. Who cares what isms back this junk science aka CAGW? It is a fools errand.
I am reminded of the old questions: What do you get when a wise man argues with a fool? Answer: 2 fools arguing.
Richard
I do not intend to comment on the left vs. right theme of parts of this thread; it’s a tired meme and a faulty discussion point. Anyway, I agree with you that the CAGW scam is not a left-right issue.
However, I will take issue with you on your assertion that Robert Heinlein “wrote ‘Starship Troopers’ to explain and extol fascism”. I contend that a) it does no such thing (although many people who saw the film may have got the impression that it did) and b) in any case, no-one who wrote ‘Stranger In A Strange Land’ could possibly be described (as you did) as “ultra right-wing”.
In any case, to ascribe any ideas that authors make the subjects of their novels to innate characteristics of said authors would be to claim that e.g. P. D. James or Ruth Rendell (to give political balance!) were mass murderers. I think you’d have to agree that neither could be so described.
Fascism is socialism with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism thrown in.
As for racism, nobody takes a back seat to leftists on that score.
Fascinating how the left actually thinks that they can get away with redefining words.
Not wanting to have govt run your life, is now imposing your will on others.
Not wanting to have govt steal your hard earned income, is now stealing from others.
MarkW:
You add to your growing mountain of lies when you write
I don’t “whine and screram”: I object to fascists and liars.
In the past I have repeatedly referred yo to the proper definitions of socialism, fascism and other ‘isms’ that I provided in a post on WUWT here.
But you don’t provide “dictionary definitions”. You only provide offensive falsehoods such as this
Donald Trump is not one of us “leftists” and my record of opposition to racism is clear.
Richard
– – – – – – –
Loren C. Wilson,
I tend to agree with your position.
The concept of fascism is fundamentally based on government control indirectly of most means of production and wealth by the state ‘centralizing/regulating’ the private sector to do what the state wants. Whereas, the concept of totalitarianism is fundamentally based on government control directly of production and wealth by having them be a quasi-formal or formal part of the state. Both fascism and totalitarianism are forms of socialism (actually, collectivism is a better term than socialism).
John
John Whitman:
You assert – wrongly and without evidence – that
NO! Providing false definitions is a childish trick to win a debate in your own mind.
Define a mouse as being an elephant and you can claim a person would be crushed if trampled by a mouse. But real mice do not and cannot do that.
Neither fascism or totalitarianism are forms of socialism.
Richard
Nit picking over semantics will not solve the problem. Today there seems to be a fusing or hybridization of the different forms of tyranny and oppression. Marxism socialism Communism statism fascism do not exist in a “pure” from. And it seems like all roads are leading to totalitarian type governments.
ricardo maxwell:
Sorry, but you miss the point: this discussion is NOT about “semantics”.
This discussion is about members of the rabid right using this thread to attempt to divide opposition to the AGW-scare by presenting the lies that
(a) the AGW-scare is promoted by the left and opposed by the right,
(b) the left lies all the time but the right rarely lies, and
(c) socialists are fascists.
Richard
“Sorry, but you miss the point: this discussion is NOT about “semantics”.”
Actually, it is.
What is left? Is the left the same as leftism?
What is right?
What is extreme right?
“Neither fascism or totalitarianism are forms of socialism.”
Then define these.
simple-touriste:
Your ‘red herring’ fails.
The discussion is about members of the rabid right using this thread to attempt to divide opposition to the AGW-scare by proclaiming lies about “the left”.
Presentations of false definitions is one of the ploys they have been using to proclaim their lies.
In Paris The Magnificent Seven are being branded as “criminals”.
In this thread “lefitsts” are being branded as liars and fascists.
All the branding has the same purpose and it is all equally untrue.
Richard
Richard, you are the one providing false definitions.
Socialism is a form of totalitarianism, because you have to force the producers to take part.
The leeches in this world don’t want to let the milk cow get away, so they have to use force to enslave those who are required to support the rest.
Richard writes:
(a) the AGW-scare is promoted by the left and opposed by the right,
(b) the left lies all the time but the right rarely lies, and
(c) socialists are fascists.
A is mostly true, but you are the only one pretending that anyone has made such an absolute statement.
B is mostly true, with the same proviso
C Fascists are a subset of socialist, not the other way around. Can’t you be bothered to get other people’s arguments correct?
Richard, as near as I can tell your definition of socialism, is all things good, and for the right is all things bad.
You just whine and scream that fascism and socialism have nothing in common, but you obviously can’t give a definition for either term.
Others give dictionary definitions for both terms, and then you whine that giving definitions for the terms you use is a grade school tactic to avoid debate.
“Do you think Social Security is “totalitarian?””
What is your opinion about mandatory vaccines?
“Do you think public education is “totalitarian?””
What is your opinion about mandatory teaching topics? About teaching unproven theories?
What is your opinion about national diplomas?
So private schools get the same benefits?
That’s new to me.
MarkW:
As proponents of fascism always do, you misrepresent.
I wrote to ricardo maxwell
You claim
NO! I wrote the precise opposite of what you claim I wrote.
I said those statements are lies and – as I have here quoted – you have added another lie seemingly for the same purpose as I said the listed lies have been asserted.
Richard
richardscourtney,
The central fundamental concept of ‘socialism’ is the political principle supporting state control (by whatever means or style or in stealth or in openness for any reason) of the core means of production and wealth (where physical property is included in wealth and where a person’s valuable time is also included in wealth).
’Adversus solem ne loquitor’ is wisdom sometimes.
John
Moderator
My comment to Loren C. Wilson a few minutes ago just disappeared without even going into ‘Waiting Moderation’. Can you look for it in the Word Press nether regions? Thanks.
John
moderat0r,
Thanks, it showed up.
John
BillyV:
You claim
Please don’t be silly. You provided that overtly anti-democratic propaganda in hope of misleading the uninformed and gullible.
Your claim of what is “rationality” is merely promotion of falsehood.
I use the “terms” that are known and understood by all but are refuted by the ultra-right originally in their text book titled Mein Kampf. If you do want the definitions, then I provided them on WUWT here.
It is simply true that the video refutes itself.
It begins by stating the accepted reality of the political spectrum with communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right and moderates in the middle.
It follows that by making the untrue assertion that the political spectrum is different from that reality and is from all forms of government on the left to “no government” (i.e. anarchy) on the extreme right.
It later asserts that the left don’t define their terms. But not so, it admitted near its start that every rational person – including the left – accepts the reality of the political spectrum is communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right with moderates in the middle.
You present falsehood when you write to me
NO! I support truth and oppose lies. The “logic” of the message in that video results from the video replacing truth with its an assertion of its own untrue and imagined political spectrum, and then arguing as though that imagined political spectrum exists.
You also say of the video
In reality that video would only be fit for use as a starting point for discussions in ultra-right-wing indoctrination classes.
Richard
Found this on YouTube and I think it is important for proper understanding the different forms of government(s) “available” today and a bit of their history. Some may argue the assessment is wrong, but if you really define the terms properly, it is true what is presented:
https://youtu.be/9SVB2aH71_4
BillyV
Excellent post. That should be shown on the first and last day of every high school civics class in America.
Eugene WR Gallun
BillyV:
Your video provides ridiculous far-right propaganda refutes itself.
The video starts by admitting what is the real political spectrum with communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right and moderates in the middle. It then makes the untrue claim that the political spectrum is different from that reality and is from all forms of government on the left to “no government” (i.e. anarchy) on the extreme right.
Having redefined ‘black as being white’ it then uses its distorted definitions to make a series of untrue assertions. Indeed, it claims that people who adhere to understanding of the real political spectrum don’t define their terms: not so, the diatribe began by stating the true definitions of political right, left and center.
However, the video is honest about one thing: it reviles democracy as all fascists do.
But, as Churchill said, “‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. I agree with Churchill and not the fascist polemic you have provided.
Richard
Richard, I provided the clip especially for you, but I see you missed completely its message. You fail to define your terms and if rationality is correct, total control by the government is on the left.
As far as refuting itself, that is your term.
You seem to re-define the terms until you achieve in a later post, the following conclusions: “The Naz1s were fascists: i.e. they were the extreme right. That fact is embarrassing for the American far-right so they pretend fascism is left-wing but they only fool themselves with that and everybody else laughs at such a Big Lie.”
Please go re-watch the clip and follow its logic. It did not per your critique, “admit” anything but for your benefit, carefully initially defined its terms. Just because you wish to trash anything on the right, you can’t nor will ever see the logic of the message. Sorry Richard, think it is you that has the vision and comprehension problem based on your definitions, bad historical assumptions and classic engrained misusage of the term- “right wing”.
Not being in the group on the far right, (or left) I feel I can honestly assess what is going on.
As Eugene says, I think it should become at least a starting point for discussions in civics classes.
BillyV
BillyV:
My refutation of your deliberate idiocy has appeared in the wrong place. It is here.
Richard
Great video!!! And both of you stop focusing on right vs left or right and left; that’s how the oligarch gets its way. The point of the video is made in just mere seconds. Bottom line: Democracy is by majority and its policies…… a corporate code; the republic is by rule of law. i.e natural law/God- freakin logic!!!!
It doesn’t matter whether its right or left, its a matter of lawful vs legal. Real law can’t be created/passed/repealed, only policy or the family code can be thought up and or repealed. And trust me, the democracy is a family with no rights to property because it belongs to the collective. the collective who make up this family. I hope that’s simple enough.
Canada (Her Majesty) is a Democracy; America was a Republic and still can be, so long as you know how to reclaim it and rebut presumptions that you are a member of the democracy.
In the real world:
You claim
No! Outside of the fantasy world of the ultra-right it is known that political alliances are formed for expediency.
Churchill and Stalin were allies during WW2. That does NOT mean Churchill was a communist or was “following Stalins orders”.
The Naz1s were fascists: i.e. they were the extreme right. That fact is embarrassing for the American far-right so they pretend fascism is left-wing but they only fool themselves with that and everybody else laughs at such a Big Lie.
Richard
I love the way Richard decrees that those who agree with him are ultra right wingers.
That’s the left for you, everything black and white. Me good, you evil.
Ooh, this is surely a declaration of war by the Unelected Powers on those that question them. Only a matter of time before Sceptics hit back with their own reply, surely? This could turn out to be very damaging for the establishment.
They already “hit back” with data, model error checking, and the slow drip of additional research in regular science process, but to no avail.
Somehow I don’t think the NYT and LA Times will cover this story of intolerance. At least they are not calling for number tattoos on the arms of skeptics and fact checkers……yet.
En anglais à Paris? haha
Yuck. Don’t touch that Marc!
Notice how so many of these warmist org leaders & MSM by lines are by barely twenty someones from the Jayson Blair school of journalism?
Nicholas
So good of you to notice.
Additionally, you would be impressed to know how many of those come from 50K a year schools.
The demigods of the elite imposing their self importance on the little people.
Perhaps an unintended consequence of capitalism.
ROFL! Go Marc Morano and the Magnificent 7! (But get your hand out of that ick!)
Gee, I sure hope those “Wanted “posters were printed on 100% recycled paper (by hand on a mimeograph) with wild-gathered plant ink and affixed with non-petrochemical adhesive . /
Reminds me of the good old days.
Too bad someone didn’t have the time to print up small bumper-type stickers and to attach them to the posters a la National Lampoon; Like one that says “Thinking People” ,to be placed under the “Wanted” part , and “Invites you to learn about the REAL science and the potential effects of wasting your tax dollars on misguided policies” under the “Marc Morano” part.
How long until some unhinged Leftist decides to start shooting at these “criminals”?