CLIMATE CHANGE AS HATE SPEECH, DOG WHISTLE, AND PROTECTION RACKET
The argument over “climate change” has created an untold bonanza for Barack Obama and his liberal peers.
Pitching this “Vote Democrat or cause the end of the world” issue has given Obama and liberals here and abroad the means to blame literally everything bad that happens anywhere on their political opponents.
As you might suspect, the path that led me to that conclusion winds through some interesting awakenings. Among those awakenings is the realization that contemporary liberal political campaigning on the issue of Climate Change…
• is a form of hate speech
• functions as a dog whistle (for Pavlovian Democrat voters).
• serves as a marketing tool in the manner of what has been called the “protection racket.”
President Barack Obama tells us climate change is a greater threat to our nation and the world than ISIS (or “ISIL” as he says it). In fact, he says it’s the greatest threat to humanity period.
Taken in a political sense, what Obama is actually telling us is that conservatives, by obstructing the liberal policies, which he claims are the only means to halt or solve climate change, are actually enabling a catastrophe that poses a greater threat to human life and safety than radical, suicidal, mass murdering terrorists.
Other liberal politicians, such as Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the U. N. repeat this same narrative. Sanders claims that not enacting liberal policies that would halt climate change causes “droughts, floods, and other natural disasters,” making people uncomfortable or hungry or angry enough to “be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now”
Moon internationalizes the matter saying that when we do not “address climate change properly” (i. e. implement the U. N. policies claimed to counter it) … “young people who are jobless and frustrated (as a result of the impacts of climate change) may join these foreign terrorist fighters,”
What both Sanders and Moon are saying is that when a terrorist act happens, it isn’t the terrorists who are guilty, The guilty party is really the Republicans and Conservatives who have opposed liberal policies and thus caused climate change which turned the terrorists into terrorists.
Making climate change a matter of race and “white privilege,” Dominique Hazzard, a member of the Black Youth Project 100, states: ““The Black Lives Matter and the Climate and Justice movements are totally connected because, ‘round the world, climate change is disproportionately impacting people of color and the working class.”
An op-ed in the Los Angeles Times states, “Climate change is indeed a cause of social conflict,… including sports violence, murder, gang violence, riots and civil wars.
Follow this thread and you will find that climate change (allegedly caused by not implementing liberal policies) has been blamed, not only for causing terrorism, but for causing drought, floods, hurricanes, tornados, abnormal heat, abnormal cold, “other natural disturbances,” crop failure, species extinction, increased disease, sexism, racial discrimination, etc, all of which incite terrorism, race riots, floods of immigrants fleeing to the U. S. and other developed countries and more.
In other words, not implementing liberal policies is causing everything bad that happens on the planet.
CLIMATE CHANGE AS HATE SPEECH
An online legal dictionary definition of “hate speech” includes…
“An incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.”
“A communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred.”
If blaming a definable group — Republicans, conservative voters, “climate change deniers” — for causing everything bad isn’t “an incitement to hatred,” I don’t know what is.
As for those who say “real hate speech” must be directed against “a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like,” There’s plenty of every one of those categories in the climate change villifications being slung around by liberals today.
“Racism?” Dominique Hazzard’s statement about climate change “disproportionately impacting people of color” categorizes the matter as an example of “white privilege.”
So does the fact that the main topic of discussion at a “White Privilege Conference,” held by a liberal consulting group in Loiusville, Kentucky was “courageously act(ing) in response to climate change.”
As for “ethnicity” and “national origin?” The nation cited as the origin of climate change, of course, is, of course, the U. S,. Confirming this, climate change crusaders demand that Americans redistribute the wealth we have accumulated creating and exploiting the fossil fuel economy by paying reparations to third world nations to make amends for our ill-gotten gains.
What about, “gender, religion, sexual orientation?” The America being blamed for climate change was the domain of old, white, gray-haired, American heterosexual Christian men.
CLIMATE CHANGE AS DOG WHISTLE
All of this is merely the tip of the political bonanza “Climate Change” yields for Democrats/liberals. Attributing everything bad that happens in the world to climate change and thus to conservatives, private enterprisers, and traditional Americans turns every hurricane, every tornado, every earthquake, every tsunami, every act of terrorism, every riot of any sort, every crop failure, every wildlife species deemed to be in danger of extinction, every bit of negativity on the nightly news into a political Dog Whistle to mobilize Pavlovian liberal voters against the Democrats’ opposition.
(Ever wonder why Republicans and conservatives get blamed for everything? Ever wonder why so many Republicans are reluctant to oppose liberal policies? Now you know.)
Even having climate change naysayers around is alleged by some to be a serious liability. The fact that the U. S. stands as an obstacle to “climate change responsibility” because its large number of conservative voters successfully oppose such measures on occasion means we deserve whatever acts of terrorism we suffer. Remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s “chickens coming home to roost” comments?
Cranking the value of this blame bonanza even higher, climate change has proved to be immune to debunking. (“It might not be happening now, but it’s gonna happen.”) In fact, if you even try to discredit this orgy of villainization, you are labeled a “denier” and liberals begin calling for you to be jailed or worse.
As a result, those of us who obstruct liberal policies and thus allegedly enable climate change ( i. e. Republicans, conservatives, anti-big government activists) are accused of being the enemy of everyone on Earth, including ourselves…
So, who’s going to protect everyone from us Climate Change Causers? You got it — Democrats! Which brings us to the real reason they created the Climate Change issue in the first place.
THE OL’ (LIBERAL) PROTECTION RACKET
Why have liberals created Climate Change? To serve as a sales pitch for their policies that otherwise have very serious marketing problems. Consider the left’s energy policies: I remember reading a book in the early 1970s advocating that, if we were to subsidize solar power and other renewable energy forms a little bit for a little while, they would take off and replace fossil fuels as our major energy source. That, the sales pitch continued, would solve our climate change problem, which, at the time, was alleged to be global cooling. Today, even though we‘ve spent trillions subsidizing solar and wind power and other renewables, the idea of those energy sources actually replacing carbon-based energy has been described as a “fantasy” the costs of which would be “astronomical,” by no less than the liberal Bill Gates.
Failure, of course, is no stranger to liberal policies. The “War on Poverty” has cost trillions and increased rather than decreased poverty. Obamacare has made health care more expensive rather than less. Electing Obama was supposed to reduce racial divisiveness. His policies and presence have heightened it to arguably unprecedented levels. Obama’s liberal foreign policy was supposed to improve America’s image around the world. Instead it has seriously diminished the degree to which we are valued by our allies and feared, or at least respected, by our enemies.
So, how do you sell policies that have such a long history of failure?
That’s easy! You invent an amorphous threat like climate change. Pitch it via hate speech and dog whistle! And apply the Ol’ Lib Protection Racket by tweeting to whoever will listen, if they don’t do absolutely everything they can to make sure all liberal policies are enacted, not only on climate change, but on every issue, it’s all over, the end is here, we’re all gonna die, and the Apocalypse is Now.
Having said that, I can’t help but ask: If climate change is really going to be all that bad, are we sure we want to face it with liberal policies that are guaranteed to fail? Conservative policies, on the other hand, have a pretty reliable record of success. After all, it was conservative policies that facilitated the creation of the fossil fuel economy that made us as prosperous and comfortable as we all have become. Come to think of it, what’s left of that approach is still working pretty well.