Obama's Bushisms and His Politcal Stance

Just a slight observation about Obama's speeches lately. Particularly in the past week regarding education and health reform. On education, he claimed that Americans who do not graduate high school are basically betraying their country. In the health reforms, he blasted Republican fear mongering. Regardless of whether you're for him or against him, I've noticed that Obama has been taking a strong "you're either for us or against us" tone in his speeches. G.W. Bush used this style a lot and was blasted for it, yet nobody but me has seemed to have noticed Obama doing it. For someone billed as a great united, this is a vary polarizing tactic. It's certainly got the American right rilled. I can't help but wonder whether it's going to come back and bit him in the end.

I also sense that Obama is far more of a socialist than his policies would indicate, suggesting that he is being held back quite a bit. His appointment of Van Jones as "Green Jobs" czar was an odd choice. Jones is an admitted communist and is a 9/11 "Truther", someone who thinks the government perpetrated the attacks. He has since stepped down from the job due to these controversies. Obama is also good friends with 70s self-proclaimed revolutionary Weatherman Bill Ayers. Then there was the Reverend Wright scandal during the elections. He seems to surround himself with a lot of far-left radical thinkers. On the political spectrum, I would place Obama as a social democrat, not a liberal. You get the sense that he wants to take his policies further left into the realm of socialism, but is frustrated due to the political and procedural roadblocks preventing him from doing so. This is why I believe he has been more aggressive in his speeches in recent weeks. It's not just the Republicans that are causing problems either. He's further left than a lot of others in the Democratic party. (In Canada, he'd probably fit right in with the NDP.) Many Democrats do not feel comfortable with his policies. Unlike Canadian leaders, Obama doesn't have the luxury of strict party unity, so bills inevitably get watered down in congress in an effort to please everyone. He has certainly received a rude awakening now that the honeymoon is over. He's either going to have to accept the limitations on his power, or he should just resign now and save face before the BS hits the fan.

read more...

Setting the World on Fire

I've been reading Steven Milloy's "Green Hell", a book about the politics of modern environmentalism. In it, he claims the green movement is staging almost a coup over world governments by making them believe the apocalypse is imminent and only they can stop it. Over the last couple of years, I've been trying to develop my own theories regarding the politics of global warming. Arguably, we are seeing a new kind of McCarthyism as Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun pointed out the other day. He was specifically referring to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who called US congressmen that voted against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill "traitors". That's a word that carries with it a lot of power and is not one that should be used lightly. Both Krugman and Milloy represent the polar extremes on the global warming debate. Milloy's theories are interesting but it is easy to label the likes of such "deniers" as crackpot conspiracy theorists. However, when you have on your side the likes of former NASA boss Dr. John Theon, sci-fi great Michael Chrichton, and some 20,000 scientists who signed a petition arguing that current AGW theories were faulty, it adds a lot of weight to the argument. It's easy to get a little suspicious when pro-AGW scientists try to present a debate, based largely on circumstantial evidence and computer models where important data points was deliberately left out, as being finalized. I haven't finished Milloy's book at the time of writing this but I've begun to put together my own theory on environmental politics. In short, it seeks to create a new world order through an entirely new form of government.

Based on proposals from environmental groups, words spoken by pro-climate politicians, scientists, and activists, I've discovered that the overall goal is a total reshaping of the way governments and economies operate in order to protect the planet. If they are successful, it would give rise to an form of government known as periballocracy. I like making up my own words; this particular one comes from the modern Greek word periballon, meaning environment, and the root -kratia, meaning to rule. So periballocracy is rule by environment or more specifically rule by environmentalism. It is aristocratic collectivism with a green twist. In this form of government, you have a group of elites micromanaging society and the economy to reduce the impact of humans on the planet. It is inherently anti-individualistic, instead focusing on group social engineering and laws to force the reduction of energy usage and the adoption of other "sustainable" living practises. It may also adopt concepts of wealth redistribution, economic reduction, population reduction, socialism, and communism. It is inherently statist, requiring much larger governments than those that exist today. It is also anti-democratic, frowning on those who reject the conventional wisdom of the rulers. Furthermore, the overall goal is to create a global government based on these principles.

Pariballcratic organizations already do exist. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is probably the best known example. Numerous NGO's have also called for similar styles of government. Regardless of the form it takes, pariballocracy's goal is to drastically alter your way of living in order to stop global warming and other kinds of environmental damage. This form of government functions similarly to how nations such as the People's Republic of China and Iran do. You still have some degree of freedom, and free enterprise most likely will still exist, but the government reserves the right to make changes to your lifestyle if it begins to conflict with the party line. It's not quite Big Brother but it is still a disturbing prospect. For example, government programs that remotely manage your thermostat to reduce energy use during peak demand already exist, but are currently voluntary. The next step would be to make them mandatory. Pariballocratic governments would expand beyond this, from telling you what kind of car you can drive and how far you can drive it to extremes such as limiting the number of children you can have. It does sound similar to a communist or fascist state but instead it transcends "petty" notions of social justice and nationalism. Like a theocracy, it puts intangible concepts before that of humanity. If you obey the government now, through which you will rescind your sinful ways, you will be saved in the future. Unlike a theocracy, pariballocracy has anti-human tones to it. The idea is not to protect you or your immortal soul, it's to protect the planet. At the most extreme end of things, you are expendable, much like a flea on a dog's back. There are one of two final goals this movement seeks to achieve. First, to create a perfectly sustainable modern society in which we keep current technology levels but with limited impact on the planet. Failing that, the second goal is to force society to turn the clocks back completely to before the industrial revolution. My goal of this article is not to frighten you but just to illustrate just how far things can go if left unchecked.

I suppose I should explain the song. I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire by The Ink Spots. It has been featured in several works dealing with apocalypse, notably the Fallout video game series, which deals with the world after a nuclear war. The fear of an imminent apocalypse usually results in driving people to surrender more freedoms to their leaders. Countless religious cults and churches going back millennia have known this. The likes of Joe McCarthy knew this as well. They weren't crazy; it's all about dominance and submission through fear. The powers that be are delighted to have a "real" apocalypse on their hands this time. I'm not saying that our current form of government is going to collapse in favour of a pariballocratic system. That's pretty unlikely at this point even though some elements of it are appearing in the halls of power right now. Still, it's important to beware of the true motives of those positioning themselves as the sole saviours of our society from impending "doom". Many believe that whether their ideals are flawed or not, at least the environmentalists are genuine in their goals and mean well. As trite as it sounds, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Don't trust those claiming to be the solution to all your problems, when you never knew there was a problem to begin with. They are the ones who will set your world on fire.

read more...