UPDATE: And the namecalling goes on, days later at the ABC. Who knew the words “order”, “new” and “world” are triggers for conspiracy-theory-psychoanalysis?
Yesterday Maurice Newman dared suggest that the real climate change agenda was “concentrated political authority”. I watched his article on The Australian get quickly repeated through the SMH and many other outlets, which wouldn’t always happen. I counted down the hours until Newman was called a “conspiracy theorist” — about 18.
I expect Maurice Newman knew exactly what game he was playing today. Like tapping a knee to trigger a reflex, the words “World Government” always provokes outraged mockery and namecalling as if it were against the laws of physics rather than being the banal, obvious desire of a certain part of the population. There’s a reason there’s no hit song called “Nobody wants to rule the world”.
Was Newman baiting the gullible fans of a man-made catastrophe in order to get his message spread far and wide? If he was, it was successful. Now it’s up to us to pick up the ball and point out that hypocrisy of the sacred taboo — only a certain class are allowed to discuss “world-government” (that’s the class who like the idea).
If you fantasize of a Global Democracy or an Earth Parliament you are a Saint of the Poor. Let us cheer your insight! But if you aren’t sold on the biggest of big-government ambitions, namely a global bureaucracy or A Single World Government, you are a rabid conspiracy theorist — park your brain in the cone of silence, while we laugh at you!
If Maurice Newman had talked of global bureaucracy or an earth democracy his article might have been ignored. His words would probably not have been repeated all over the lamestream media, but left leaning journalists and editors salivate over the chance to mock someone they love to hate. But by using this obvious bait, he reaches more readers and gives rational people the chance to talk about important things like the dangers of big-government, and the lack of polite debate. There is no intelligent discussion of the risks and benefits of One Giant State. There is only inane name-calling “conspiracy theorist”. Those who throw it,hope to hide that they have no argument, only abusive weak namecalling.
“Conspiracy theorist” is the mindless term used to beat down a rational discussion.
It’s a kind of hyper-hypocrisy and nobody bothers to hide it. When Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, says she wants to transform the global economy, or praises Chinese dictators, she’s cheered as a visionary. When Bob Brown dreams of a global democracy and parliament, he gets a standing ovation. When Maurice Newman talks about the same thing, people say he should be sacked.
When anyone points out the ambitious, self-serving goals of personal power, it’s time to break out the “conspiracy-theorist” smoke machine, lest anyone start to talk about the dark side of the mini “World Government” called the UN, and that turns the public off the idea of a bigger darker version.
We’ve discussed this issue many times here. David Evans mapped out the theme and made the connections years ago, in Climate Coup — The Politics. The greatest loss of sovereignty in the history of the planet almost occurred in 2009 at Copenhagen, where most of the countries of the world planned to cede control over energy and parts of their economy to a global bureaucracy. In the event the Chinese baulked and others followed. We knew then that anyone who uses the term “world government” would get called a conspiracy theorist:
If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say.
There is no secret “conspiracy”
There is just the bleedingly obvious systematic problem that big-government players have an incentive to make government bigger and competition smaller.
As Evans said:
Global Warming: What’s At Stake for You
If you are an economic member of the regulating class, a global bureaucracy instigated by the alleged need to regulate CO2 emissions would be terrific: more jobs, power, and money for bureaucrats and their allies. You would be part of what would effectively become a ruling class, free to tax a captive population whatever they could bear and pay yourselves whatever you “know” you’re worth.
For everyone else, what’s at stake is freedom from the demands of a hostile ruling class, as well as more disposable income, more choice, less red tape, and a better quality of life. The new regulating class—bureaucrats, academics, greenies—look down on others as stupid and morally inferior, they don’t like people who make real stuff, and they don’t like the private sector or the marketplace. They would be happy for the everyone else to compete in the marketplace to make them stuff, but they themselves won’t have to compete. Their regulations would be global so there would be no escape, and competition between nations vying for our services and taxes would shrivel.
Maurice Newman is flying direct into the Flak. Bravo. Let’s not shy away, but head straight in to discuss the way they use namecalling, insults and denigration to silence a debate they really don’t want to have. (Predictably on the ABC site The Drum free speech is vital but only when the topic is “allowable”. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the ABC to discuss the dangers of silencing skeptical professors, nobel prize winners, and half the citizens of Australia.)