POLITICS & PROPAGANDA: ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ IS JUST CAMOUFLAGED COMMUNISM

This is the third in a series of posts addressing the issue of ‘Climate Change.’ In my first post, I explained why ‘Climate Change’ is not based on sound science.  In my second post, I backed that up by showing the history of ‘Climate Change’ shows a pattern of changing between warming and cooling scare.  This will be the most difficult post yet, as, in this post, I will attempt to prove there is a direct link between ‘Climate Change’ and global Communism.  This will be difficult for two reasons.  First, the connections require a rather broad knowledge of political history; both American and international.  But second, it will be difficult because I have to convince you this is real.  That is a difficult task because the same people who hide behind the issue of ‘Climate Change’ have used the idea of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ to protect themselves from being exposed by people such as myself.  Whether you know it or not, you have been conditioned to dismiss me and any evidence I present, and you have been conditioned to do so by the very same people who seek to enslave you using the scare of ‘Climate Change.’  If you will stick with me and give careful consideration to what follows, I believe that I can either convince you I am correct, or provide you with the bread crumbs necessary for you to do the research that will allow you to convince yourself.

A CLEAR EXAMPLE

I want to start with a speech given by President Jimmy Carter.  I’ve chosen this speech because it is not only connected to the issue of ‘Climate Change,’ but it is also one of the easy examples to expose and explain.  The speech was given on April 18. 1977.  In this speech, President Carter connected the energy crisis to something he called ‘the moral equivalent of war.’  That phrase — ‘the moral equivalent of war’ — is a ‘dog whistle’ phrase for those who are behind all of this.

DOG WHISTLE POLITICS

If you are politically inclined, you have probably heard a politician or political commentator accuse an opponent of using a ‘dog whistle‘ phrase.  In America, these accusations most often come from members of the political Left, and are aimed at those on the political Right.  There is good reason for them to make these accusations: it is because they are actually correct, but that is a subject for another post.  What you need to understand is that our politicians and their allies in the media and academia speak a different language.  They learn it in their Ivy League schools and their exclusive societies.  They use this language to communicate openly without fear of the public understanding what they are actually saying.  But, if you know enough history, and where to look to find it, you will discover that you can learn their language.  And once you do, you will come to understand that these people have been openly boasting about their plans for decades.  They’ve just done so using language that leads you to believe they are saying something with which you agree when, in fact, they mean the exact opposite.  During the recent Democrat Primaries, Hillary Clinton used a ‘dog whistle’ term when she said she was an early Twentieth Century Progressive. If you know what that meant, you knew she was declaring herself to be a Communist who seeks to take over without violent revolution.  When President Carter mentioned ‘the moral equivalent of war,’ he was saying much the same thing.

AMERICAN PROGRESSIVISM IS COMMUNISM WITHOUT REVOLUTION

This was first devised by President Woodrow Wilson.  In 1913, Wilson wrote a paper named “What is Progress?”  In which he said that he desired Communism for America, but he realized Americans would never revolt.  Therefore, he decided he would have to bring Communism to America through a series of small, incremental steps.  He called them ‘progressive steps,’ but said he would use the term ‘progress’ in an American way — so it would be accepted without ever knowing what Wilson really meant.  You see, in the early 1900’s, Americans were proud of the ‘progress’ they were making in technological terms.  We were building massive buildings, bridges and dams.  This is what Americans thought of when they heard the word ‘progress.’  But Wilson used the term to advance the small, progressive march toward Communism.  Wilson openly boasted about what he wanted, but he did so in a way that no one except those inside his circles would understand.  In short, he intentionally deceived the American people.

All of this is explained in the essay he wrote (I linked to it above).  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and most every other intellectual leader in the American Left knows this.  What’s more, they admit it all the time.  You just have to know history so you know what words and phrases to watch for.  Once you know the history behind these words, you will understand how correct I am — and you will never be fooled by these people again.

THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF WAR

“The Moral Equivalent of War” is a paper written in 1910 by a man named William James (Read the link.  It tells you this man influenced President Carter).  For as far back as humanity can remember, leaders have used war as a means of controlling the population.  It provides a enemy against which to focus the people’s attention, thereby uniting them and putting their support behind their leader.  It also provides a reason for the people to sacrifice — even to the point of total deprivation of necessary goods and inherent rights.  However, the American Civil War, followed by the First World War caused political leaders to re-think the practicality of using warfare as a means of focusing and controlling their people.  Modern warfare was too destructive: both in terms of lives as well as the economy.  What they needed was something that was not as destructive, but which would cause the people to united and suffer loss of comforts and rights equally as well as war did.  Hence, the quest for “The Moral Equivalent of War.”  So, when President Carter connected the energy crisis to ‘The Moral Equivalent of War,” he was telling his political allies that he intended to use environmentalism as a weapon against the American people and their way of life.

ENVIRONMENTALISM

After the debacle they caused for themselves in the 1960’s, when they tried to get the youth of America to rise up in a violent Revolution and overthrown the American government, the Communists moved back to the ‘Progressive’ approach. Once they decided to do so, they needed a cause they could use that would scare the American people enough that they could be united, but united in a way that would justify giving up their material comforts as well as their liberties.  The Communists chose the environment as their ‘Moral Equivalent of War.”  What’s more, they tried to support it by invoking the name of ‘science.’ The idea is simple: if you can convince the people that ‘science’ has ‘proven’ that their way of life is destroying the planet and would lead to the death of millions, you could convince them to surrender themselves to you.  Once again, tying science to the Progressive agenda leads us back to Woodrow Wilson.

WILSON AND THE ‘SCIENCE’ OF ADMINISTRATION

The rise of bureaucracy can be traced directly to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement.  This time, Wilson wrote a paper called, “The Study of Administration.”   In this paper, Wilson argued that government should be run by scientists.  Each area of ‘science’ would get its own division, or bureau.  These bureaus would make all decisions for the nation, and the decisions would never be wrong because they would be ‘scientific.’  The only thing the nation would need then is an elected dictator.  He explained that in his essays, “Leaders of Men” and “The President of the United States.”  This dictator would then ‘manage’ the bureaucracies and you would have the perfect government.  It would be perfect because it would be ‘scientific.’

MODERN SIGNS OF WILSON’S LEGACY

Once you know this history, you will start to see the signs in every story advocating the ‘Climate Change’ agenda.  When President Carter launched his ‘war’ on energy, he did not call for a national campaign to make us energy independent.  Instead, he called for rationing.  This is not the ‘American’ way.  Kennedy demonstrated the American way.  He challenged us to go to the moon in ten years and we did it.  But Carter, influenced by Progressives (who are Communists by another name) chose a Communist approach.  Instead of finding a solution, he attacked our way of life, which also attacked our rights and liberties.  This is always the way with ‘Environmentalists.’  Their solutions are never focused on how to do something in a way that will not harm the environment.  Instead, their solutions always attack the economy by calling for things that lead to economic restraint as well as the surrender of individual rights and liberties.

AL GORE CALLS FOR POLITICAL PUNISHMENT

The drive to cement ‘Climate Change’ as the final ‘Moral Equivalent of War” has grown to the point that one of its most public leaders has openly called for political leaders who question the authority of the government’s ‘scientists’ to be punished:

Gore says climate-change deniers should pay political price

Now, on the surface, this can be explained as Al Gore calling for the people to punish their political leaders for questioning or rejecting the ‘Climate Change’ agenda.  But one should never assume such innocent explanations when dealing with a Communist — especially a Communist who uses ‘dog whistle’ phrases like Al Gore does.  Notice that there is a real price being pushed by Gore in his call for punishment:

“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore said, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

This is pure Communism/Fascism: the use of government power to penalize and control of one’s enemies.  The only problem is, no matter how many laws one passes allowing this, it is un-constitutional.  Not only does it violate equal protections, it violates the Bill of Attainder clause (a bill written specifically to punish an individual or individual industry).

UN OFFICIAL ADMITS ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ A VEHICLE TO ATTACK CAPITALISM

Earlier, I told you that you just need to know where to look to find that these people are open about what they want and how they intend to do it.  I also told you the media and most of academia is in league with the Communist ‘Climate Change’ agenda.  Well, here is a story that the media hid from you, and for good reason:

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

She was talking about Capitalism.  Now, ask yourself these questions:

What political agenda seeks to eliminate Capitalism?

Why does the American left — Progressive/Communist by its own admission — align with and support the UN over its own government?

Why do the ‘solutions’ proposed by the ‘Climate Change’ agenda always penalize the American economy without a corresponding penalty being applied to nations guilty of much more pollution that the United States?

And why do environmentalists in America always demand solutions to perceived problems that prohibit economic activity and restrict individual rights and liberties?

LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

My dear reader, ‘Climate Change’ is not based on sound science.  It changed its name from ‘Global Cooling’ to ‘Global Warming’ every thirty years until, finally, it gave up and adopted the name ‘Climate Change’ — so it can claim to be correct in all cases.  Finally, the solutions pushed by the ‘Climate Change’ people never actually try to solve the problem by looking for solutions that do not restrict economic and personal freedom.  Instead, they always push ‘solutions’ that require people to surrender their material comforts and personal liberties to government control.  What’s more, the only country ever really asked to pay for any of this is America.  China, Russia and India are nearly always exempted from any of the draconian cuts that are demanded of the U.S., a nation already many times ‘cleaner’ than either of the other three I just mentioned.  There is no logic in any of this — unless you know the history of Communism/Progressivism in the United States.  Once you know that history, and learn their language, you will see that they are the ones behind the ‘Climate Change’ agenda — and they always have been.  They are not looking to ‘save the planet.’  They are looking to destroy the United States and Capitalism so they can seize global control of the world.  They have said so, and you can find it — if only you know where to look, and have the courage to believe them!

[NOTE: to properly understand Wilson’s influence on the present, one must read all four of his essays mentioned in this post, and read them together.  They rest upon each other, with pieces from each part of his greater agenda being contained in each of the essays.]