The one item missing from every agenda is truth
The agenda of most people in public life runs something like this – the order of importance changing according to specific circumstances and job function:
1. National esteem
2. Profit, shareholders and dividends
3. Making people more uniform and thus easier to control…
4. ….yet proclaiming the sovereignty of the oppressed minority
5. Refusing to admit a mistake or alter a disproved policy
Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has told workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that “the future of Japan” depends on their ongoing struggle to contain leaks of highly radioactive water at the site. Abe’s brief visit to the stricken plant on Thursday – his second since he became prime minister last December – came just a few weeks after he categorically assured the world that the situation at the facility was under control. His reassurances undoutbedly helped Tokyo’s successful bid to host the 2020 Olympics, but were later shown to be mendacious bollocks.
Now it has emerged that US experts urged the Japanese authorities to take immediate steps to prevent groundwater contamination two years ago, but their advice was ignored after Tepco lobbied against the proposed construction of a barrier because it feared the high cost would spook investors and push the firm closer to insolvency.
Although sometimes involving better intentions, the workings of the European Commission are equally terrifying in their outcomes. “ A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK NATIONAL STATUTE FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOLERANCE” has just been proposed, a law that will nevertheless criminalise certain aspects of freedom of speech.In its truly mind-boggling overture to thought-controlling fascism, the proposal defines a minority group (about whom it shall be forbidden to speak negatively) as ‘a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, gender identity or sexual orientation, ‘or any other characteristics of a similar nature’.
One wonders what form of f**kwit or pernicious hobgoblin included the phrase or any other characteristics of a similar nature. In one fell swoop, such a Bill if it became law would produce the astonishing double-whammy of criminalising the criticism of an aberrant anal sexual practice, while protecting every paedophile on the planet.
But we could take it further. To do so requires only a few moments of casual contemplation. The Kray brothers and their ‘Organisation’ were indisputably joined by cultural and ethnic roots – so this law would’ve offered them carte blanche to be free from media, political or police criticism: Scotland Yard would’ve been forced to arrest victim critics of their reign of terror for having wicked Krayist tendencies.
It is in fact the hallmark of the Wishful Unthinking Tendency (or WUTs) to start from the assumption that the majority of citizens are Nazi dumbos, but every minority is by contrast without blame. The protection of “individual human rights” (a body of things that doesn’t exist, but nevertheless suggests humans have rights that dogs, rare buildings and planets don’t) thus becomes something that must be pursued at all times – however ghastly the individuals concerned might be. Thus, in a very close vote recently, the Swiss House of Representatives biased any future nationwide vote about banning paedophiles from working with children by recommending that voters not support the initiative, and back a counter-proposal instead.
A legislative initiative brought to the Swiss Assembly by the Marche Blanche group strove to amend the Swiss constitution to ensure that “persons who are convicted because they have affected the sexual integrity of a child or a dependent person permanently lose the right to pursue any professional or volunteer activity with minors or dependents.” But the social democrats and Greens decided to put the rights of minorities before the majority of citizens. They found this amendment “too strict and disproportionate” and recommended to the electorate that a revision to the penal code, as set forth in the counter-proposal suggested by Cabinet, made more sense.
The desire to render their ideas eternally unopposed infects almost every élite group (just another form of minority when you think about it) especially religions. But it has spread to almost every walk of life now, one general example being the almost obsessive desire for “settled science”, an oxymoron as idiotic as “political correctness”. The groups at the extreme of climate-change hysteria and denial are perhaps the most tedious of all – despite the fact that the vast majority of balanced evidence suggests they’re both wrong.
The next version of the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report on global warming will be out in a week or so. In 2007, this body ‘reported’ that, “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.”
But later, we saw (in July 2011) a dramatically opposing report from NASA studies of the upper atmosphere, which more or less completely blew the CO2 argument apart on the basis of the earth allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models had predicted The study indicated that far less future global warming would occur than UN IPCC computer models had predicted, instead supporting prior studies which indicated a far lower ‘trap rate’ for CO2 generated heat than alarmists had claimed.
Now a new independent study concludes that 97% of the computer climate models have been shown to have overestimated the amount of warming due to CO2. It suggests that all high greenhouse gas predictions show a clear indication of bias, largely based on ignorance about CO2 inter-relationships.Yet I’m told that the new IPCC study will claim that they have even greater confidence in their conclusions.
My belief – based on a continuing close study of the track record in the debate – is that history will simply see these two dictatorial belief systems as equally inaccurate. When reading James Delingpole on the one hand or the IPCC on the other, any sane person should find their certainties at best disturbing. Yet both opposing groups gather unto themselves followers in the sense of zealots rather than reasoned supporters.
National (and ideological) esteem is at the heart not just of the Fukushima cover-up, but also Chinese fantasies about their economy needing little more than fine tuning, and the Brussels-am-Berlin insistence on ClubMed austerity. Profits, dividends and the certainties of neoliberal globalism lie behind Anglo-American QE, stock markets based on zero fundamentals support, and Mario Draghi’s profoundly daft idea to incessantly pauperise the eurozone consumer. The sovereignty of the minority group gave us twenty years of untreated Afro-Caribbean familial dysfunction in Britain, a level of immigration akin to filling fire-hoses with petrol, and an intransigent Islamic belief that they – just 4.7% of the population – have the God-given right to establish universal Sharia Law in the UK.
But perhaps greater than any other motivation in the 21st century is the seemingly antithetical Establishment desire to have the majority they so despise uniform and controlled in their attitudes. Such totalitarian instincts have given us both the BBC and Newscorp, Euromedia silence on the subject of ClubMed insolvency during the German elections, endlessly repeated Obama and Cameron lies about real levels of employment, a pathetic level of thought applied to the real alternatives open to the NHS, and – at the top of the list – the complete inability of anyone powerful in the economist-political-banking-business class to address the radical reform of capitalism with genuine honesty and practical creativity.
It has for centuries been claimed – ever since the development of mass media – that the first casualty in war is Truth. But when it comes to agenda-based thinking, the first mortality is Truth. And whereas most wars come to some sort or conclusion, when it comes to the fanaticism of blind belief, it goes on an on until huge numbers of innocent citizens wind up discovering, the hard way, that they are most certainly not immortal.