1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
Posts
16 comments:
I choose this section:
FOX News ["I call it 'scientific fascism,'" Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. Sensenbrenner said, "The U.N. should throw a red flag" on scientists who support global warming to the exclusion of dissent]
What a problem with the free market. The theory of unlimited freedom to do as I please and the collective right of survival and reach a dead end.
I don't think is like Hugo Chavez would do, it is accepting the facts. Our system need structural changes, and better do it by peaceful means.
Sorry, a mistake:
What a problem with the free market. The theory of unlimited freedom to do as I please and the collective right of survival have reach a dead end.
But the question is, is regulating carbon dioxide a legitimate structural change? You realize that carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer and increases crop yields so lower carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase the cost of food and therefore increase hunger and malnutrition in the world. Also, there is the minor issue that much of the evidence related to global warming has been faked.
And by the way, how are these peaceful means? If you chose not to spend a ton of money reducing your carbon dioxide emissions, the EPA will order you shut down. If you dont shut down, they will send in the thugs with guns to arrest you and take everything you spent your life building. Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.
when you said "carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer and increases crop yields so lower carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase the cost of food and therefore increase hunger and malnutrition in the world" you forgot that the CO2 mobility in the atmosphere is not as quick as you imagine. Believe me, there is enough CO2 already available in the atmosphere to harvest much much food.
"much of the evidence related to global warming has been faked" well, that is an assumption in your side. If two or three scientific have made serious unethical actions, doesn't contravene the millions of man-hours of different research centres around the world that are checking and double-checking the main findings. So the evidence related to global warming is real, not a fake. Please, don't play with religious credential on this subject because just reduce the chances to take the very needed actions now.
Peaceful means without civil war, without mass murder of protestors, without selective murder of pro climate change movement leaders. What you see as "violent" is just the power of coercion that the law has. By the way you have the law in your side to defend yourself, so better use it.
When the science is false then all arguments based on them are a cover for something else.
Structural change is needed, says who? Socialists, Communists and totalitarians.
How much freedom are you willing to give up?
W Blackberry. From what I understand, man-made global warming is still unproven. Even if you can show the temperature is rising, how do you prove that it is because of humanity? Europe used to be much warmer than it is today for example. And then there is the other issue of, whether global warming is in fact bad. There are quite a few people in the northern latitudes who would appreciate warmer weather as that would increase the season for growing crops. And the third issue is, what can we do to stop any of this. It seems that to make any meaningful dent in any of these greenhouse gases we have to take the clock back to 1870 in terms of industrial production. That doesnt sound very promising. And forcing us to go there is the economic equivalent of what Pol Pot did when he forced people to leave the cities and live in villages.
Interesting analogy with Pol Pot, Max. All leftist dogma seems to be predicated on a return to some earlier purer time. That's how the global warming meme fits their agenda perfectly.
To me global warming is just one leg of an extreme religion, like fundamental Islam which requires you to go back to something that never really existed for the sake of the priests power and totalitaran control.
We're leftists and unless you follow our plan you'll burn in hell. Sound familiar?
Jerry,
When I said that a structural change is needed is because the planet resources have been squeezed (oil, minerals, fresh water for food irrigation, etc) even if the technology resources tackle that very subject, there is no guarantee that a solution will came out instantaneously, this planet is a system with finite resources and they are overexploited. It's because this temperature raised is man made. Structural change doesn't means totalitarians. Mean more democracy, participative democracy, and more responsibility. There is a marriage between degrees of freedom and degrees of responsibility. You just can not do as you please, when your action or omission created life threat to others. That is simple not acceptable.
W Blackberry, please read The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborgs book the Skeptical Environmentalist. The actual hard data is not actually bad. It's just propaganda that makes everything sound like the world is coming to an end.
Max,
Let's assume that the global warming prediction will only be evident in 100 years time, let's assume that the consequences will be have of the consequences estimated today. What is a responsible attitude toward the next generation, with your family or not your family. Do you reduce their chances to have a better future assuming your responsibility today? or do you just let them down. What do you do? This is not a technical question if the data is true or false, there are just two possible options with two possible actions and nothing else: it's true then you do nothing, you are a criminal; it's true then you react immediately to the limit of your talent and capabilities, maybe you are a hero; It's false then you do nothing, you are a cynical irresponsible lucky; it's is false then you react immediately, you are a decent person in front of the history. This is not a political short cut for socialism, is just rationalism. This is a moral issue. Take your chose, freely, just like Chavez would ask you to do.
Yes, it is true not everybody will be in troubles. England will be very happy planting bananas and pineapples, but you have a very narrow view of this phenomenon. In other regions densely populated will be desserts. No water, no plantations, no food. They will be migrants towards the north. What is next? Walls, gun machines, concentration camps, what? All the happy bananas and pineapples of England will be insufficient, not to say immoral. Do you see the scale?
On your third point you catch why I think it's needed a structural change. Not just on politic structures, but on economic structures. Are you scary that is like socialism? Well that is debatable. You call it as you like. But is something pretty different what we have today.
But if the prediction is wrong? Given that just a couple of decades ago scientists were predicting an ice age? Don't you see consequences to future generations if you act on bad data? You will be slowing down human development considerably. Just think about it, if the economy grows on average 3% per year, then the economy is going to double in 24 years approximately. If because of this regulation you just shave 1% off, the economy won't double for 36 years. So more than a decade in advancement, gone. Poof. The difference may not just be monetary. Maybe this will mean the difference between curing cancer for 10 years. Think of all the millions of people that would die needlessly. Is it responsible to let them die just because some unproven computer models say it might be a degree warmer in a century? And the worst part is, all these environmental controls may not even be able to change the end result in terms of global temperatures, as it might not be man made at all, and giving allowances to India and China kind of negates all the regulation that the developed world will have to bear.
Max, thanks for your book's recommendation. I just check the reviews and some pages of the text. I wonder if you accept what Julian Simon said. First, the scarcity is a mental exercise. That all natural resources are not finite in any meaningful economic sense, the stock of them are expanding by human ingenuity. If you have enough money to pay you will never feel scare resources. The more people the better. Well, a cornucopia!! Fantastic. BUT, what a problem that there is always a but. The human ingenuity is corseted by intellectual property rights, it's not free. That the technology available has a X price for you, but for me is four or ten times higher, that is unfair. That the price of hoarded materials will be high, but there still would be quantities to be found at some price, just as there always has been some small amount of food for sale in the midst of the very worst famines, because of hoarded food, that is unmoral. If I don't have the money I won't have the resources, that alienate my human condition and merchandize my culture.
I am looking forward to see the rest of you basis.
If the prediction is wrong? no harm at all. The consequences that worry you are just connected by a compulsory bond established as a self preservation trick by free-marketers. If they don't see greedy profits they don't invest in the cancer cure, or even worse, the researchers don't work on that area because is not worthy enough.
Why you associate advancement with pure economic growth, is there nothing else to grow? We cannot advance through other mechanism or social structure. Seems again compulsory like the vortex in the toilet.
If you see carefully, China and India will never renounce to their right to develop their countries. As any other country wouldn't renounce to do that. But if all of them have a benchmark in US economy, certainly we are in deep troubles. So the biggest have to go down to allow space for the smallest.
Greedy profits? Youve been listening to your fearless leader too much.
W Blackberry:
After reading the colloquy on this topic it is apparent to me that what you believe in is an ideology not science.
As I noted in my first post, you view global warming not just as a scientific concern but as an opportunity to institute "structural change".
Your comments about profits and social good make it clear to me that you would prefer a command and control society. That somehow a group sitting in the people's name will be able to make better choices then the market. A system which has not only failed everywhere its been tried but has led to horrific consequences.
One of your assumptions is that there is/will be catastrophic shortages of oil, minerals, etc. These shortages have been predicted for a very long time and yet there are no shortages. The only restrictions are politically imposed.
I have read Al Gore's poem and it sounds more like a religion then science. If you believe that unless the world becomes righteous right now or else it will end then you are practicing religion not science. You have no substantive evidence that man has that kind on influence it's all speculative, you are caught up in a belief not science. Do you remember the scientific predictions of global disaster as a result of the Kuwaiti oil field fires. Didn't happen did it. Disaster mongering is far easier then in actually producing things.
Have you ever wondered why all these pro global warming scientists have never released one report critical of their views. Are they not scientists first? Have you ever heard of a drug test where there is no report of side effects or unplanned consequences?
There are three groups of people to my mind that flourish in end of world theology. Their are those who have a real religious purpose for this view, think Islamists waiting for the hidden Imam. Then there are those who I would call mentally deranged. The voice hearing types. Finally, there are those who use cataclysmic disaster as a way to gain power. I would put you in the latter category.
I am continuously amazed at the extent of ignorance displayed by those on the Right...
First things first. 100% of Scientist in the field know we are in a warming period. 100% of Scientist agree excess CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful. THERE IS NO DEBATE THERE!
Where there is debate is what is CAUSING the warming and how much excess CO2 can be processed by the Planet.
97% of Climatologist agree that there is a man made impact, 82% of all other Scientist in related fields believe there is a man made element.
EVERY Industrialized Countries National Science Institutes, including the U.S., supports the man made position...Again EVERY ONE.
What we also know is there is NO PERSONAL FINANCIAL benefit to the Scientists on the man made side, while the ENTIRE anti warming movement is funded by Organizations with PERSONAL FINANCIAL incentive to say No.
The same Bullsh-t "no movement" occurred in attempting to prevent cleanup of our chemical laden waterways. Once rivers and bays in our industrial cities, the "no movement" disappeared.
Guess that will be the only way to stop this corporate funded "no movement," catastrophic incidents that people with simple minds can actually SEE.
BTW, Eurpoe and Japan are already investing billions into the technology the "no movement" is fighting...How is it they are still able to compete with the U.S. if they are spending those dollars the fear spinners say will destroy business?
Here's an idea, instead of continuing the anti Union GOP model that has enabled 20 - 30M jobs to move overseas, why not ensure the technology required is BUILT IN AMERICA!
I've seen estimates that it would cost $100B for companies to comply...Let's see Military spending for 2010 will be between $800 - 900B...
So $100B is financially burdensome, while our $700B yearly Defense Budget and $150B in War funding each and every year is all good?
Post a Comment