Extreme secret agenda aims to change our society

Current Events, World Discussion, Opinions etc
58 posts Page 1 of 3
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/extreme-secret-agenda-aims-to-change-our-society/story-e6frg6zo-1225954629630

Extreme secret agenda aims to change our society
Janet Albrechtsen From: The Australian November 17, 2010 12:00AM


THE Greens are anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth and anti-growth.

WE have seen this before. A third party taps into voter discontent with both sides of politics, rises to become a force in Australian politics, then fades into electoral oblivion. Remember the DLP? Remember One Nation? Remember the Australian Democrats?

At the 1990 federal election, the Democrats won 11.3 per cent of lower house votes and 12.6 per cent of Senate votes, picking up five upper house seats. Then they fizzed. By July 2008, the Democrats were a spent force.

Picking up 11.7 per cent of lower house votes and 13.1 per cent of votes in the Senate at the August election, will the Greens go the same way? Consider some more parallels. Riding a green wave of environmentalism, the Democrats looked like a long-term political force. The fairies at the bottom of the garden picked up seats at every Senate election between 1977 and 2001 by appealing to middle-class, inner-city, educated voters, especially younger voters.

Democrat support was, as analysts remarked at the time, more a case of a negative protest vote against the main parties than a positive voter support for Democrats policies. Ditto for many who now mark the Greens box.

Strong leadership helped the Democrats rise to political strength. Think Bob Brown and the Greens. Last week even Labor man Graham Richardson declared that Brown was "arguably the best politician in the country".

Success breeds excitement, and hubris. The Greens' website boasts their 2010 vote was larger than any previous third party in modern Australian political history and the first time a third party elected a senator in every state.

Remember when then Democrats senator Cheryl Kernot declared in 1997 that "after 20 years, we are entitled to say with confidence that we are here to stay and, after [the 1996 election], we can say with equal confidence that our best is yet to come"? She was wrong. The Democrats' best had been and gone. No wonder Kernot switched sides to join Labor.

Perhaps the rise of the Greens is just another third-party firecracker, an explosion of colour and light, then nothing. Just another party that for a time splinters votes away from one side, just as the DLP did to Labor and One Nation did to the Coalition.

Don't count on it. Voter cynicism is here to stay. For so long as voters are looking for a way to protest against their alienation, the Greens may snatch votes from both sides of politics.

And the reason the Greens should be taken more seriously than other minor parties is simple enough.

Behind the moderate face of a politically astute Brown and the clever green camouflage is a political force that wants to transform Australian society in a way most Australians would find abhorrent if these voters understood the policies behind their protest vote.

As former Democrats senator Andrew Murray warned before the August federal election, "don't expect the Greens to put on the mantle of a centrist party, a small-l liberal party. The essence of the Greens is a determination to change society: the way goods and services are produced, the way you are taxed and governed, the way energy is delivered. The Greens will be true to themselves."

Both sides of politics are busy with the politics of dealing with the Greens.

The decision on the weekend by the Victorian Liberal Party to reject any preference deal with the Greens at the November 27 state election is sensible politics. Voters aren't stupid. You won't defend your Liberal Party brand by giving preferences to a party you believe is a danger to the country.

The Labor Party is having enough problems defining itself given its new relationship with the Greens. Richardson and Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes think the left-flank bleeding to the Greens will stop if the ALP would only reclaim its brand as the progressive party of compassion. Good luck with that political contortion.

Inadvertently Howes, the young, comfortably middle-class, inner-city dweller, sums up Labor's political wedge. His stated preference for putting out the "red carpet" for asylum-seekers is unlikely to find much support among blue-collar workers living in outer suburban seats where elections are decided. However, the Greens raise bigger problems than preference deals and branding.

Last week, Liberal frontbencher Kevin Andrews gave an address exposing the history and the philosophical roots behind the rise of the Greens.

Had someone such as Malcolm Turnbull given this speech, the media would have lauded it as a brilliant treatise demolishing the Greens as anything but a moderate force for good. Instead, the speech by a more conservative Liberal is buried. That's a shame.

Andrews traces the values that underpin our liberal democracy, ideas such as the intrinsic human dignity where the individual is paramount.

He juxtaposes our Judeo-Christian heritage and the ideas of the Enlightenment with the very different historical roots of the Greens, where the subordination of the individual has become the driving ideology to effect radical economic and social change.

"Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution . . . What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within Western civilisation itself," Andrews said. By looking closely at Greens policies, he has uncovered what he calls the new coercive utopianism.

It becomes clear that behind every stated purpose - and an increasing number of anodyne motherhood statements - set out in Greens policies through the years is a secret agenda that, at its core, is anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-consumption and anti-growth.

The Greens' latest bill to stop banks raising interest rates beyond the Reserve Bank's official cash rate is just the latest example. It fits the Greens' agenda to reduce the flow of credit in an effort to reduce consumption. Drawing on the Greens de facto think tank, the Australia Institute, new Greens member Adam Bandt wants us to work less, too, presumably so we earn less money and consume less material goods.

For too long, Greens extremism has been hidden from the Australian public under a cuddly shroud of green goodwill.

As success brings more scrutiny, the Greens may well go the way of earlier "new forces" in Australian politics. But just as the Greens would be foolish to take their continuing success for granted, we would be unwise to treat their demise as a given.

janeta@bigpond.net.au

www.kevinandrews.com.au
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Dude, please don't post anything written by Janet Albrechtsen here.

Ps anyone who would like to live on this planet beyond the next 20-50 years should bloody well be anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth and anti-growth.
Marsoups
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:57 pm


venatrix wrote :
Dude, please don't post anything written by Janet Albrechtsen here.

Ps anyone who would like to live on this planet beyond the next 20-50 years should bloody well be anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth and anti-growth.


Don't mind a bit of an argument Venatrix - if scratchy decided not to post a topic of interest on australiens, i would be seriously bored right at this point in time!!! Its' like me telling Australiens that they most only post things that interest me please!! ..

Being a bit of devils advocate here , but some of those points you raise have their issues too...

- anti captalism... Hmm, that sounds a lot like socialism... Which is something we've been trying to avoid for years!!
- anti wealth.. Removing peoples desires to improving peoples lifestyles for bringing something useful to people... Results in : less inventions, less desire to succeed, greater expectations from people from a government with absolute control and more controls required by a government to ensure people want to work and work well!
- anti growth - well that would be awesome... Though it's not our country it's the worlds population that is growing mostly... And many people from the world would prefer another place to live, many would much prefer to live the great australian way of life...
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


venatrix wrote :
Ps anyone who would like to live on this planet beyond the next 20-50 years should bloody well be anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth and anti-growth.



OK then :D

Lets try this one on for size :bonfire:


If warming is so dangerous, why is Dick Smith overhead?

DICK Smith and his two helicopters aren’t just evidence that global warming is the first faith preached exclusively by hypocrites.

Our petrol-powered greenie also demonstrates a bizarre chasm between private behaviour and public policy that should warn us we’re being ripped off.

Smith, in a profile in Good Weekend on Saturday, once more banged his warmist drum.

Having criss-crossed the world by chopper and private plane, the entrepreneur declared: “After my research, it is most likely that humans are affecting climate.”

Er, one human in particular, Dick.

As the same article made clear, few of us would have pumped out more emissions than Smith, even though he’s the one claiming these gases are suffocating the planet.

For instance: “He has a holiday house, a farm with a homestead, a large house with a swimming pool, two cars, a steam train and all that owning three separate households entails.

“He’s very open but for some reason refuses to confirm just how many aircraft he owns - there are at least two helicopters and a jet.”

Smith objects that cutting back on his joy rides would “make no measurable difference”, and change really had to come from governments.

Decoded, that means governments must pass laws to force the rest of us to make the sacrifices Smith will not.

Or put it this way: Smith wants governments to force up the bills for the power you need to cook dinner and wash the kids’ clothes, but won’t voluntarily cut down on his helicopter trips to watch birds.

You may say I’ve picked an extreme example, but how many would you like?


There’s Virgin boss Sir Richard Brazen, for instance, who says we must cut our emissions, but then drops in to Brisbane in a private helicopter (yes, him, too) to flog his new line of business - joy rides into outer space.

Or take our own Alarmist of the Year, Tim Flannery, now a consultant for Brazen’s gassy Virgin Galactic despite demanding we cut the emissions that “threaten civilisation as we know it”.

Or how about Al Gore, the global warming billionaire, who says we must save the world by leaving a smaller footprint, yet recently bought his fourth big house. Or was it his fifth?

Then there’s supermodel Gisele Bundchen becoming a United Nations environmental ambassador, then ordering herself a new 20,000sq ft home with a six-car garage, lagoon and lift.

Have I missed anyone? Oprah Winfrey, perhaps, who urges her viewers to “see what you can do to stop global warming”, but then announces she’ll fly 300 of them to Australia. She herself will probably take her private plane.

And how could I forget Laurie David, producer of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the propaganda tape for the warming faithful, who admits: “Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year,” but says she has the right attitude: “I feel horribly guilty.”

Or director James Cameron, who sold his crazy environmental movie Avatar as a plea to “live with less”, yet lives in a Malibu mansion with no less than six bedrooms, seven bathrooms, a tennis court, a swimming pool, a guest house and an indoor cinema.

Sorry, but you shouldn’t get me started about these celebrity warmists, each blinder than the last.

Take film star Jeremy Irons, who insists “people must drop their standard of living”, while enjoying his six houses and a pink castle. Couldn’t he at least paint the damn thing green?

But I won’t go on. Point made.

Well, half the point.

Against the refusal of the loudest warming preachers to make observable sacrifices of their own, set the sacrifices demanded of much poorer taxpayers.

See, the thing about global warming is that it not just licenses closet totalitarians to design ways to force others to live more virtuously, but also excuses any harebrained scheme.

After all, they’re “saving” the planet. How could you question that great work?

And so one planet-saving scheme after another is proposed by governments that achieve nothing and cost a bomb - often so much, that even a Labor politician must finally choke.

Some examples? The NSW government last month had to slash a subsidy for solar panels to stop it from blowing out by $2.5 billion.

The Rudd government’s own solar rebates had to be scrapped completely, along with the much-rorted “green loans” scheme and the “free insulation” disaster, in which $2.4 billion was frittered on often substandard or even lethal batts and foil.

Still going is the $100 million a year the Gillard Government is investing into the El Dorado of carbon capture - a quixotic scheme to catch and bury emissions of our power stations.

Add the countless millions in subsidies and padded prices paid for wind power and you’ll know part of the reason for your power bills soaring.

Rod Mills, head of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, explained it last week to the Labor-Greens carbon price committee: “Household solar and wind generation in particular ... are high-cost measures and ones where the cost is added to the bills of all electricity consumers.”

Compare: making electricity with brown coal costs less than $40 a megawatt hour; with wind more than $100, and with solar about $300.

And the sick joke is that solar does little to stop any warming anyway .

An Australian National University review of the scrapped federal scheme says it wasted $1 billion to cut our emissions by a microscopic 0.015 per cent, and mostly by importing solar panels from China.

All of it charged to you, dear reader, in the hope that because we’re “saving the planet” you won’t ask such awkward questions as “will it actually work?” and “how much will it cost?” and “are you out of your freaking mind?”

How else to explain the Gillard Government’s “cash for clunkers” scheme, in which owners of old bombs will be paid up to $2000 if they scrap them and buy a “green” car instead.

That works out to a lunatic $400 for each tonne of carbon dioxide “saved”, even accepting the Government’s own figures. Put that in context: the emissions trading scheme proposed by Kevin Rudd planned to start with an effective tax of just $23 a tonne.

Here’s a tip for Smith and his kind. You think this joke can go on for much longer, with warming preachers belching hot air while everyone else must cork their own? If the planet really is threatened with warming doom, why don’t you act like you believe it?

In truth, a Smith demonstrates the real question we must calmly consider: would each sacrifice we’re told to make in fact make so much difference that we should make it?

Hear that choppering high over your head? That’s Smith’s answer.
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


Marsoups wrote :
Being a bit of devils advocate here , but some of those points you raise have their issues too...

- anti captalism... Hmm, that sounds a lot like socialism... Which is something we've been trying to avoid for years!!
- anti wealth.. Removing peoples desires to improving peoples lifestyles for bringing something useful to people... Results in : less inventions, less desire to succeed, greater expectations from people from a government with absolute control and more controls required by a government to ensure people want to work and work well!
- anti growth - well that would be awesome... Though it's not our country it's the worlds population that is growing mostly... And many people from the world would prefer another place to live, many would much prefer to live the great australian way of life...



Well said :D


I wonder how many people are really willing to change their lives in order to "save the planet?" Like the planet needs saving lol! :roll:


More importantly are people going to be sucked into the majority of the hairbrained, half baked schemes that the greens wish to introduce. :idea:


I also wonder what people think about Agenda21 & whether the greens support that idea :twisted:
Marsoups
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:57 pm


itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :

OK then :D

Lets try this one on for size :bonfire:


If warming is so dangerous, why is Dick Smith overhead?

DICK Smith and his two helicopters aren’t just evidence that global warming is the first faith preached exclusively by hypocrites.

Our petrol-powered greenie also demonstrates a bizarre chasm between private behaviour and public policy that should warn us we’re being ripped off.

Smith, in a profile in Good Weekend on Saturday, once more banged his warmist drum.

*yadda yadda*


Who the hell wrote that one ?? Not Miranda Divine was it ? :lol:

They having a laugh are they ?
rollyz
Posts: 3334
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:58 pm


haha, you know, I only use one Kilowatt a day. I'm going to have to cut off my electricity completely to save on any more carbon.... :roll:
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/extreme-secret-agenda-aims-to-change-our-society/story-e6frg6zo-1225954629630


Behind the moderate face of a politically astute Brown and the clever green camouflage is a political force that wants to transform Australian society in a way most Australians would find abhorrent if these voters understood the policies behind their protest vote.




The changes to our eurocentric way of life that will need to be enacted over the next generation for us to cope with water and energy shortages, the collapse of the global economy and the power shift to China will indeed be found abhorrent by the moderate right wing majority.

Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


ionized wrote :

The changes to our eurocentric way of life that will need to be enacted over the next generation for us to cope with water and energy shortages, the collapse of the global economy and the power shift to China will indeed be found abhorrent by the moderate right wing majority.

Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.



But we don't have a water or an energy shortage. We have plenty of water & plenty of energy. What we do have is an infrastructure crisis - i.e. getting the water to where the people need it (both farmers, country people & cityfolk) and nuclear powerplants that will keep us going for the next 50+ years. After all, we also have the uranium... hippies can whinge all they want about solar, wind, etc etc - not going to provide enough to keep homes + business with sufficient reliable power. End. Of. Story.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
ionized wrote :

The changes to our eurocentric way of life that will need to be enacted over the next generation for us to cope with water and energy shortages, the collapse of the global economy and the power shift to China will indeed be found abhorrent by the moderate right wing majority.

Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.



But we don't have a water or an energy shortage. We have plenty of water & plenty of energy. What we do have is an infrastructure crisis - i.e. getting the water to where the people need it (both farmers, country people & cityfolk) and nuclear powerplants that will keep us going for the next 50+ years. After all, we also have the uranium... hippies can whinge all they want about solar, wind, etc etc - not going to provide enough to keep homes + business with sufficient reliable power. End. Of. Story.


Not having the ability to transport the gigaliters water from the tropical north to the rest of Australia is the same as having a water shortage. You. Can. Argue. Somantics. All. You. Want.

Havn't seen nuclear power stations transport food, fly planes or provide the multitude of resources, from fertilizer, to plastics to medicine that petroleum does recently either. So yeah, you might want to rethink that position too.
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


ionized wrote :

Not having the ability to transport the gigaliters water from the tropical north to the rest of Australia is the same as having a water shortage. You. Can. Argue. Somantics. All. You. Want.

Havn't seen nuclear power stations transport food, fly planes or provide the multitude of resources, from fertilizer, to plastics to medicine that petroleum does recently either. So yeah, you might want to rethink that position too.



Well maybe all those retarded labore voters should have petitioned Julia to switch from spending $43billion on a high speed pron download tool to spending that money on water-proofing the country :idea:

Power stations transport food? Too easy. MAGLEV trains motherfucker :lol: . Here's an idea that would truly stimulate the economy by creating infrastructure and jobs, breeding a whole new industry (well 2 actually). That the end result would reduce the cost of transporting food + goods from city to city, city to country & from country to city and state to state. It would also reduce the reliance upon transporting goods via road, reduce people flying to get from one city to another or by driving, thus further reducing our reliance on petroleum. All by implementing nuclear power stations.

Sure we are still reliant upon the petroleum industry, but technology will come through to overcome that obstacle in time :D

p.s. safe trip mofo :atom:
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
ionized wrote :

Not having the ability to transport the gigaliters water from the tropical north to the rest of Australia is the same as having a water shortage. You. Can. Argue. Somantics. All. You. Want.

Havn't seen nuclear power stations transport food, fly planes or provide the multitude of resources, from fertilizer, to plastics to medicine that petroleum does recently either. So yeah, you might want to rethink that position too.



Well maybe all those retarded labore voters should have petitioned Julia to switch from spending $43billion on a high speed pron download tool to spending that money on water-proofing the country :idea:



Well from $3 billion in water purchases to establishing the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the current government has done more in one term than the Libs ever did in the past three. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Howard's answer was something along the lines of 'pray for rain'. What a fucking cock.

itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
Power stations transport food? Too easy. MAGLEV trains motherfucker :lol: . Here's an idea that would truly stimulate the economy by creating infrastructure and jobs, breeding a whole new industry (well 2 actually). That the end result would reduce the cost of transporting food + goods from city to city, city to country & from country to city and state to state. It would also reduce the reliance upon transporting goods via road, reduce people flying to get from one city to another or by driving, thus further reducing our reliance on petroleum. All by implementing nuclear power stations.



Hovertrains. Shit, why didn't we think of that already?

Lets roll out the solar powered segueways and the cold fusion jetpacks too while we're at it. :alien:

itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
Sure we are still reliant upon the petroleum industry, but technology will come through to overcome that obstacle in time :D


Kinda sounds a bit like those economists that say shit like "advancements in drilling technology will enable us to find more oil". Actually, no dickheads... we're just running out. Also, I highly doubt it will be a smooth transition from easily produced, low cost petroleum based products and whatever, as yet to be discovered nanogoo, that is yet to replace it.

itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
p.s. safe trip mofo :atom:


Werd :killah:
rollyz
Posts: 3334
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:58 pm


Bring on the trains! :killah:
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Marsoups wrote :
Don't mind a bit of an argument Venatrix - if scratchy decided not to post a topic of interest on australiens, i would be seriously bored right at this point in time!!! Its' like me telling Australiens that they most only post things that interest me please!! ..


It's not about what does/doesn't interest me. Posting an article by J-Brecht is like posting the Pope's latest African speech where he blames AIDS on homos and bans people from using condoms. He's extreme, super-insane, and recklessly endangering and so is she.

I'll skip past your frankly embarrassing 'devil's advocate' counter-arguments and move to the visual. Take a look at these photos of Kellyville and Stanhope Gardens, aka McMansionville.

Look at the sheer size of these monstrosities and think of how much they are impacting our country right now. None of them have any solar panels. They are right out in the western suburbs where it gets stinking hot in summer. They would all be running reverse cycle airconditioning to cool their castle-sized homes in summer, and heat them in winter. They probably run sprinklers all the time to water their lawn so they can keep up with the Jones'. They drive absolutely everywhere; to work, to drop their kids at school, to the megamall to get milk if they run out as there are no corner stores, and they consume goods, products, resources, and land in a manner disproportionate to what they need.

You want to know why your electricity and water bills are rising? Look no further.

Image

More images here: http://www.amerry.com/gallery/edgewood/index.html

Or just look on google maps for the urban sprawl in the western suburbs.
rollyz
Posts: 3334
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:58 pm


I remember when Kellyville was just farmland. Like that was just 15 years ago.

I was impresses with this posting on fb...

"Imagine you have a test tube with one cell in it. Now imagine that the number of cells doubles every minute and take 60 minutes to completely fill the test tube. After 60 minutes, there is no food and no space. The test tube was 50% full at 59 minutes; 25% full at 58 minutes. At 55 minutes it was 3% full.

At 55 minutes one cell turns to the others and says what about this population explotion we are are running out of resources. The others say, what do you mean, we have been here 55 minutes and there is still 97% of the test tube left.

We are at 59 minutes.

It is easy to forget what has been lost and imagine that what is left is limitless. We know that our earth is not limitless, yet we use its resources like there is no tomorrow. I think 5 to 15 years and the ride will be over."

:|
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Nice post rollyz!

To give it some perspective, the place I live in at the moment is just under half the size of one of those garages in the picture I posted. Most families have 1.5 kids these days so these gigantic houses have a maximum of 2 adults and 2 children in them. If you have 5 or 6 kids then yeah sure, live in a huge house (if you can afford it) or if you have 1 or 2 kids but your parents or in-laws live with you, but for a normal couple or family the houses are obscenely excessive.

Do you really need 4 lounge rooms on a 700sqm block? :shock:

Image
rollyz
Posts: 3334
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:58 pm


How many toilets do they need? Hey everybody, lets have a shit-a-thon :?
tract
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 6:45 pm


Janet Albrechtsen is to The Australian what Miranda Divine is to the Daily Telegraph.

Ill-informed, irrational, sensationalist Liberal Party agitprop.
flurohero
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 9:12 pm


it's not really a new thing to use terms or images consumers find wholesome and endearingly appellant
[like 'green','new-age','psychadelic','patriotic','war on terror' or 'underground' ]to sell dubious items or push sleazy agendas.


i think it actually makes consumer/sociological/political/comedic sense to tell reassuring catatonia-sustaining fibs to dumb people and let them enjoy the fantasy without introducing anything too conceptually challenging.

they would not know what to do with qualitative information anyway,why upset them?
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


flurohero wrote :
they would not know what to do with qualitative information anyway,why upset them?


because it affects who they vote for which affects who my PM is. it was too close a call nearly having Abbott as PM, that shit's not a joke. he is a serious loony and this bacteria-infested diarrhea from Janet is purely for the purpose of fuelling bigoted hatred against the greens so they will get a hiding in the VIC election.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


It's curious watching the state of populous sentiment degenerate into a nationalistic flavah as a reaction to the abhorrent measures to address their own excess. At the same time, the leftist intellect bandwagon dismissing the hearsay of any such notion that might allude to this fascistic trend, mainly in order to save face and maintain it's integrity. But then good guys do finish last don't they?

Curious in a giant paradoxical way, that's all.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Did you ever stop for a moment to think why the words 'leftist intellectual' are always found together?

Or, more crudely, why you never hear the words 'conservative intellectual' or 'right-wing intellectual'?
flurohero
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 9:12 pm


simply reduced ,it is 'dolphin-vampire' flavoured.
noitnemretsim
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:46 am


Maybe its called leftist intellectual because they coined it in a press release. Everyone knows the conservatives are an over educated bunch of nay sayers. Liberals are like ronin, loyalty for hire.

And the whole green agenda is a marketing campaign to rally the people against a common threat. We are so retarded now we reduce issues to a colour to use a selling point. Pink, green, brown paper for recycled.

If we want to sve the world we need a good marketing campaign. Ala frisky dingo
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


its usually the so called "intellectuals" who have the least common sense.
58 posts Page 1 of 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests