The cynicism of the radical Left

October 25, 2013

Why is it that upper-middle class private schoolkids are drawn to this nonsense?

See below

***

Be careful from whom information is sourced…
http://kouroshziabari.com/…/
“The Zionist agenda was described by Israeli Oded Yinon in his document “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” Yinon projected the rise of Israel’s power in the region by way of the fracturing of neighboring Arab nations along ethnic and/or religious lines. He envisioned that this splintering, as observed in Lebanon, could be repeated in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan to weaken them.”

http://libyasos.blogspot.co.uk/…
“The charge of rape as a political weapon was spread — without evidence — against Serb forces to justify U.S. plans for the first NATO bombing campaign in the history of the military alliance in 1994 in Bosnia and was used again in 1999 in Serbia in the first NATO occupation. The rape charge was used to soften up the U.S. and European population for the criminal war against Yugoslavia. Now a similar plan is in the works for Libya.”
Ergo, she argues that the atrocities by Serbs against Bosnians in the 1990s were fabricated.


Little Green Footballs and Respectability

October 7, 2009

Is it just me or does LGF have a need to appear on the mainstream of every argument? The issue for me is the relentless way in which CJ et al demonise climate change skeptics. “Those tricksy scientists are just lying to you again. You know how they are. You can’t trust ’em.” is a good example of the rhetoric being used.
1. The scholarly sceptics are often scientists of high repute. I wondered how they would tackle the opposition to the thesis within the scientific community, especially as I’m awaiting a copy of Heaven and Earth: The Missing Science, by Professor Ian Plimer. The answer appears to be…don’t answer the question. Ignore it. So we have resort to scientists who support the theory and the acceptance of their statements as gospel.  No counter-critiques are published or debated. No mention of groups like climateaudit or wattsupwiththat, who provide criticism based in science of the CC approach to climate.
This is indictative of the LGF approach to all controversies at present – scramble for the middle ground and stay there rather than risk credibility.

For the record, I think that LGF’s position on most issues has been the correct one in the circumstances and I can see why they’ve adopted these positions as the US conservative political grouping has disintergrated (and the middle gone loony!) but there are weaknesses here. What actually distinguishes LGF from other political positions on the centre left?

Update:
I notice that the illustrious LGF has not picked up on the latest government advert, here in Britain, warning children of the dangers of CO2. Hmm. Is my thesis of desperate respectability correct? Even Nature criticises this advert – on scientific and moral grounds. AGW is a religious movement whose pyschology is rather reminscent of the old grim Protestant evangelical movement.

Incidently it wasn’t so long ago that Charles Johnson hosted Penn & Teller’s Bullshit series, which also included an attack on AGW theory. Also he supported The Great Global Warming Swindle, then changed his mind recently. In the same post he hosted support for Michael Creighton. This is a little flighty to my mind. From one to the other, hurry!