What-makes-you-question-the-conspiracy-theories-around-The-New-World-Order?

My answer on Quora.

The same reason that I question conspiracy theories about 911, Elvis Presley’s death, UFO abduction, the Obama’s birthplace and the Anti-Fluoride movement. There is simply a lack of evidence to support the thesis upon which their theories are predicated on.

Remember the burden of proof for any claim resides with the individual making the claim and as Carl Sagan put it “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (although it is believed that the phrase predates him…may be associated with Pierre-Simon Laplace). This is often referred to as the Sagan Standard.

Carl Sagan Source: Carl Sagan

Now I am a skeptic to begin with. I believe that this is consistent with the application of science and is certainly integral to the empiricism inherent in our Western Philosophical tradition. David Hume’s contribution is invaluable here.

Having said that though one needs to balance this skepticism with an openness to new ideas. However in the final reckoning the value of any theory must dovetail with the evidence. If it doesn’t then the solution is simple - the theory must be discarded.

Now its not just the evidence that calls into question the merits of a great deal of conspiracy mongering (which occurs on both the left and the right by the way). There is more to it than that. These are some other issues that call into question the validity of a conspiracy theory.

• The sheer number of players who would have to be involved and indeed sworn to secrecy to maintain the theory. On a practical level alone this seems to be completely unrealistic.
• The tendency by proponents to move the goal posts when the conspiracy is questioned coupled by the swiftness in resorting to the ad hoc fallacy. For those who are not familiar with the term here is the logical form of the ad hoc explanation.

Claim X is true because of evidence Y. Evidence Y is demonstrated not to be acceptable evidence.Therefore, it must be guess Z then, even though there is no evidence for guess Z. Source: Ad Hoc Rescue

Conspiracy Theory Check List Source: The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.

• conspiracy theories are often self serving. They seem to exist to confirm the worldview of the proponent instead of adding objective criticism of an established position. Case in point is the fondness by antisemites of the Rothschild banking conspiracies.
• conspiracy theories under closer investigation often conflate fact with speculation. Certain events, which support a narrative are flagrantly overplayed while others that do not are diminished in importance are completely relegated to the trivial. Weighting systems with respect to events are manipulated to satisfy the conspiracy theory.
• They fall with the slightest application of Occam’s Razor. How Occam's Razor Works. This does not mean that the simplest explanation is always the correct one. However it all too often is. Conspiracy Theories without fail never pass Occam’s razor.

Source: Occam's Razor: The Principle of Simplicity

Additional Reading

1. Popular Mechanics Investigates 9/11 Myths: FAQs
2. Among the Truthers: by Jonathan Kay
3. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director

Why should we not blame NZ mosques' attack on Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Douglas Murray?

My answer on Quora.

am Harris, Bill Maher and Douglas Murray have never once advocated shooting up a mosque. Nor do they encourage any violence towards Muslims. They do take issue with the philosophy of Islamism itself, which is understandable in light of the vast amount of terrorism that has been carried out in the name of the Armed Jihad.

In addition all three of these figures (who are atheists) actually support the right of individual Muslims to follow their religion (within a context that is consistent with the nation’s laws ). While they don’t agree with the central tenants of the belief system they don’t object to peaceful practice.

This was not the case with the shooter who was acting based on individual agency with the sole intent of catalyzing a broader conflict. Others have read what he has read and have not acted as such.

No, the fault of the killing lies completely with the shooter alone. He made the choice to commit violence and acted on it.

What is your take on the Donald Trump-North Korea Summit?

I answered this on Quora.

Mixed thoughts. I am not optimistic overall and I have to admit that there is a great deal that is disconcerting about both the earlier Singapore summit and of course the recent follow up in Hanoi.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump Source: Singapore, North Korea and Donald Trump's 'seat of the pants' success

At present though Trump is correct to walk away. By Failing in Hanoi, Trump Almost Succeeds | National Review

This is what bothers me

• Trump’s praise of Kim Jong-un. The North Korean dictator is a despicable human being. Look no further than the county’s human rights record or the way opponents of the regime or even those who have fallen foul of Kim have been terminated to see evidence of this. Kim doesn’t deserve even a smattering of praise. The fact that Trump used the phrase special relationship (normally reserved for the US-UK alliance) when discussing Kim is also cringe-worthy. There is absolutely no reason to stroke this man’s ego.
• I don’t like the fact that Trump is leading the negotiations. The leg work here should have been carried out by Mike Pompeo (and the State Dept) with Trump entering the fray at a later stage when many of the sticking points have been resolved. There is still a giant rift in positions between the two parties.
• North Korea has been playing the West for some time now. They signed agreements in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2005, 2007 and 2012 and violated everyone of them. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence indicating that they plan to discontinue this practice of double dealing.
• Trump appears to be treating the summit hoopla as an opportunity to have a big win on the foreign policy front. This is a recipe for a bad deal. Obama did the same with the weak Iranian deal and was rightly criticized for that. If Trump follows suit, placing public relations over resolute foreign policy (that reflects American strength) his efforts here will be counted as a failure. Conservatives should be no less critical of Trump then they were of Obama several years ago. North Korea has not transformed just as the Mullahs didn’t at the time.
• Trump failed to take North Korea to account for the torture and murder of American, Otto Warmbier. He spoke openly about doing so in 2017 and has walked back this promise. Taking Kim at his word here, in his claim that he was largely unaware of the details of this case, is extremely disturbing.

However this is what Trump has got right so far in his dealings with North Korea

• The US can accomplish a lot that is positive when opening dialogue with its enemies especially if the National leadership comes to the table from a position of strength. Richard Nixon understood this as did Ronald Reagan, even if extreme caution is necessary.
• In order to improve its global image in this regard and improve its case North Korea did not launch a missile test in 2018. In terms of global tension this is a very welcome sign. However not all are convinced that the Trump factor is the key driver here. Kim Jong Un launched no missiles in 2018. Here's why.
• The US recently walked away from the table when North Korea pushed forward to end the sanctions issue. This was the right move by Trump. The US holds the aces here. North Korea needs to deliver first.
• He pushed North Korea to return the remains of American soldiers killed in the Korean War. They complied. US forensic analysis says bodies returned from North Korea are likely the real deal
• He rightfully celebrated the release of detainees Tony Kim, Kim Hak-song, Kim Dong-chul by North Korea. This was carried out ahead out in May of 2018. North Korea has just released 3 American hostages
• Trump has largely acted in accordance with the current South Korean government which is seeking to amend relations with the North through negotiation. Since South Korea is in the immediate range of fire it is critical that the policies of both the US and South Korea be aligned. For the most part they have been during the Trump era.

Where do we go from here?

I honestly cannot see North Korea relinquishing their Nuclear Weapon development capabilities unless the pressure on Pyongyang is upped by an order of magnitude. Its this single ingredient that gives Kim added play in the power politics of the region. He also needs it to maintain the strong man persona that he has cultivated back home.

If Kim is to budge here I expect that China will have to play a pivotal role. Beijing has used North Korea as a reliable irritant against the West and they have more clout than any other player in turning the screws on Kim. Trump may have some leverage with China with respect to the Trade negotiations but I am not convinced that he will make use of it with respect to North Korea. He ought to but there may be other factors that are at play here.

Whatever it is, this issue will not be resolved for now. One could make the case that Kim may be turning around as he has seen the ‘light’ as this article suggests but I think such analysis is premature. Editorial: Trump has many flaws, but he deserves credit for his surprising success over North Korea

There is a reason that the menace that is North Korea has dogged presidents since Truman and it isn’t likely to disappear overnight. Its better to proceed with caution and carry a big stick than to put pen to yet another paper that will be invalid before the ink dries. Let’s wait and see.

Sources: All the Times North Korea Promised to Denuclearize

Meeting With North Korea Is a Win for America

Why did 23 GOP members vote against the bill that condemns anti-Semitism?

I answered this on Quora.

hey voted against the Resolution as it is watered down sham masquerading as a feel good statement. It has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do about offering cover to those that regularly engage in antisemitism.

You see the Democratic Party has an antisemitism problem. However it is loathe to admit it as Jewish voters have largely supported the Party, but the problem has existed for some time and has become much more open as of late.

Representative Ilhan Omar, with her remarks on the power of the ‘Benjamins’ and now the insinuations of Jewish dual loyalty (a very old Anti-Semitic trope) is the most obvious example. However she is not the only one to swim in these waters.

Rashida Tlaib’s ‘They forgot what country they represent’ remark hit another low point.Rep. Tlaib uses anti-Semitic line to attack Republicans' pro-Israel bill | JNS.org

Source: U.S. Jewish groups strike back at Rashida Tlaib: 'Tell us more about dual-loyalty'

Dig a little further and you will see that it goes even deeper than this. Well documented antisemite Louis Farrakhan regularly meets with the key players in the Congressional Black Caucus Raw Video of Farrakhan and Maxine Waters Leaks, Leaves Her in Difficult Position.

You may of course remember Farrakhan from these classics.

The Jews have control over those agencies of government. When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”Saviour’s Day Speech, 2/25/18

and

"I believe that for the small numbers of Jewish people in the United States, they exercise a tremendous amount of influence on the affairs of government...Yes, they exercise extraordinary control, and Black people will never be free in this country until they are free of that kind of control...Meet The Press interview, 4/14/97

Source of Quotes: In His Own Words

Now he has been denounced and one would suspect that the above type of statement would not be repeated but apparently that is not the case. Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan delivers anti-Semitic speech.

Then again maybe he doesn’t have to. After all he can still share the podium with such Democratic Party luminaries as Bill Clinton and Jessie Jackson.

Should Bill Clinton have shared a stage with Louis Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin's funeral? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

When we cut down to it, the reason is obvious. Farrakhan has a great deal of sway within the party. He speaks to a key contingent which buys him a pass with the establishment.

Take a look at this.

Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan posing together. Source: Hidden photo of Obama and Farrakhan released in new book

This picture was apparently suppressed ahead of the 2008 election. Could this long-lost photo have derailed Obama’s 2008 campaign?

It is for this reason as well that James Clayburn, now the House Majority Whip, met with Farrakhan in 2011. Ranking House Democrat Stood On Stage With Farrakhan in 2011.

Clayburn of course was rightly denounced by Nikki Haley for his recently articulated insensitive remarks directed at the children of Holocaust survivors. These of course were initiated in defense of…guess who?…Ilhan Omar. Somehow she needed defending and Clayburn took up the fight. How noble of him. https://www.thestate.com/news/po...

Now all of this does not mean that the average Democratic Party voter is an antisemite. They are not.

However it does open up some questions (some old and some new)

• Why is a vile character like Louis Farrakhan not persona non-grata with anyone associated with the Democratic Party? The same can be said of Al Sharpton (he of the Crown Heights riot fame) who was courted by Barack Obama not once but 85 times. GOP Wisconsin House member on Sharpton at White House.
• Why is llhan Omar still on the prestigious United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs considering her obvious hostility to Jews?
• How long is the party going to continue to cover for Omar? Enough with the excuses.
• And Most importantly…..Why was this particular Resolution watered down when its original intention was to specifically condemn antisemitism? It was not supposed to be conflated with a smorgasbord of other broader topics. However this is exactly what happened.

Now some believe that the party is fighting for its soul. The fight over Rep. Ilhan Omar exposed deep divisions in the Democratic caucus. Certainly Linda Sarsour, another figure who often stokes the antisemitic flames, knows where she stands. Women's March leader blasts 'white feminist' Nancy Pelosi for Ilhan Omar condemnation

This may be the case but there is clearly something rotten within the Democratic caucus and if the party cannot purge itself of this bile then the odds will be high that it could evolve into an American version of the British Labour Party. This would be an an utterly despicable outcome. Among Britain's Anti-Semites | Harper's Magazine

Additional Sources

• Al Sharpton and the Crown Heights riots. The Crown Heights Riots | My Jewish Learning
• UK's Labour Party divided over anti-Semitism | Raw Politics

Do you agree that Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are the best English footballers? If not than who is the best English footballers in your opinion?

My answer on Quora

Steve Gerrard and Frank Lampard were both excellent players and Gerrard in particular should be ranked in my opinion in the Top Ten of All-Time.

Gerrard was a classic box-to-box midfielder who could tackle, pass effectively (both long and short range), cross, take set pieces and score goals. He could literally play at any position on the pitch (other than goalkeeper of course). Although he never won the league he did win everything else. His genius was most displayed by the way that he orchestrated Liverpool’s come-from-behind win in the Champion’s League Final (2005) and the FA Cup Final (2006).

Stevie G. Source: Steven Gerrard to play for Liverpool FC Legends v Milan Glorie

Lampard was more of an attacking midfielder who played in a Chelsea system that afforded him the opportunity of essentially functioning as an auxiliary striker. Unlike Gerrard he had the luxury of deep midfield cover afforded to him by Claude Makélélé and Michael Essien and rarely (if ever had) had to dig deep and carry out the ball winning play in his own half. He was a prolific scorer but I don’t believe that he was as versatile as Gerrard. Still he was a player of tremendous ability.

Frank Lampard Source: Chelsea offer Frank Lampard new deal after contract re-think

Returning to the question…The English game is old and has had many storied players who deserve an inclusion in an all-time Top Ten List. These lists are of course subjective but I would, as much as I like Gerro, I would place Bobby Charlton, Jimmy Greaves, Stanley Matthews, Kevin Keegan, Tom Finney, Gary Linker and Alan Shearer ahead of him (maybe not in that order of course) in terms of overall contribution to the game.

Jimmy Greaves Source: Players rally to show support for Jimmy GreavesScoring Machine 386 Goals in 566 appearances. 44 goals in 56 games for England.

Paul Gascoigne, Glenn Hoddle and Paul Scholes were first rate as well but I am still convinced that in terms of player completion that Gerro can ride alongside any of them.

Kevin ‘Mighty Mouse’ Keegan Source: Kevin Keegan at Liverpool - Won back-to-back Ballon D’Ors (1978 and 1979)

Why did my Dad always say Harry Truman was the greatest President the United States ever had?

My answer on Quora

The Greatest of All Time is rarefied territory. However there is no doubt in my mind that Truman was a tremendous president. Certainly Top Ten. I believe that his legacy should be celebrated by both parties.

Harry S. Truman | U.S. President & History

Here is a list of his key accomplishments. Harry S Truman..

• Worked to ensure the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 and negotiated the post war order that would exist on the continent.
• Accepted the surrender of Japan.

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia. Signed on board the USS Missouri

• Implemented the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine to check Communism in Western Europe. Different perspectives on the Cold War and Truman Doctrine Aids Greece Against Communism
• Played a key role in establishing NATO as a military alliance opposed to Soviet expansion.
• Gave the go ahead and oversaw the famed Berlin Airlift in 1948–1949 to counter the Soviet blockade of the former German capital.

West Berlin children celebrating the airlift Source: Why the Berlin Airlift Was the First Major Battle of the Cold War

• Set in motion the desegregation of the Army (completed by Eisenhower) - Executive Order 9981.Executive Order 9981
• Signed into law the Housing Act of 1949 that increased the scope of public housing (major victory in the Fair Deal). https://www.innovations.harvard....
• Merged the Armed Forces in 1947 (National Security Act). Also established the Air Force as a separate unit.
• Played a key role in the establishment of the CIA and the NSA.
• Recognized the State of Israel as an Independent Country
• Dispatched US troops to the Korean peninsula which prevented the entire region from being engulfed by the Communist forces of North Korea (with later Chinese backing).
• Had a lead role in drawing up the UN Charter in San Francisco.
• Pulled off an election upset in 1948 when he defeated a strong and experienced challenger in Thomas Dewey while fending off Dixiecrat (Strom Thurmond) and Progressive (Henry Wallace) opposition.

Truman defeated Dewey in another election that the media got wrong. Source: It's happened before: Truman's defeat of Dewey had hints of Trump-Clinton

Here are the Controversies of his Presidency and some of the shortfalls

• The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman described this as the ‘ the most terrible bomb in the history of the world’. The debate still rages today as to whether this was the most prudent move. I believe that it was (a topic for another question) . However Truman struggled immensely with this decision. The link here describes the various alternatives that were looked at. Harry S Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service)
• Truman was criticized for his handling of the Korean War. US Casualties would reach a level of over 128,000 + including 33, 686 killed. The war was successful in that it saved South Korea from being absorbed by the North but it largely ended in a stalemate. Truman’s dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur was a highly unpopular decision at the time (indeed he faced impeachment) although in retrospect it may have been a necessary one to ensure civilian control of the military. In Truman’s own words

If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military. Policies are to be made by the elected political officials, not by generals or admirals. Yet time and again General MacArthur had shown that he was unwilling to accept the policies of the administration. By his repeated public statements he was not only confusing our allies as to the true course of our policies but, in fact, was also setting his policy against the President's... If I allowed him to defy the civil authorities in this manner, I myself would be violating my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution Source: Truman, Harry S. (1965). Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope. New York: New American Library.

Pres. Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur Source: Military Officers and Politics: The Fraught Relationship between MacArthur and Truman - Modern War Institute

• Truman’s Fair Deal was largely unsuccessful. Other than the Housing Act discussed above it failed passage through Congress.
• Strike Action dominated Truman’s early years as President. The strike wave of 1945–46 was the largest in US labor history. Truman tried to veto the Taft-Hartley Act that restricted and limited the power of Labor unions but failed. The Postwar Strike Wave of 1945-46.

Harry Truman was a very unlikely President. He was not a part of FDR’s inner circle (nor was he member of the East Coast elite establishment) but he was forced into the difficult predicament following FDR’s death, of accepting the surrender of Germany and negotiating a post war peace in Europe that would not repeat the tragedy of Versailles.

He had to deal with a strong adversary in Josef Stalin whose troops had occupied most of Eastern Europe. While the agreement in Potsdam was far from perfect it did protect the integrity of Western Europe and staved off a possible clash with the powerful land force of the Red Army. It could have been a lot worse.

With respect to Japan, Truman needed to end the war in this region as soon as possible to minimize the loss of life. The dropping of the bombs was the best of several awful alternatives, While it now seems that Japan’s decision to surrender was motivated more by the Soviet entry into the war, without the luxury of hindsight, it is difficult to fault Truman here. Remember that the taking of the Island of Okinawa alone had seen 160,000 causalities on both sides. An invasion of Japan itself would have greatly multiplied this loss rate.

Truman’s brilliance though was in his swift recognition that the closure of World War II had created another problem for the Free World. The Cold War was a reality. The Iron Curtain had descended.

The US had to take the lead in combating the Soviet threat, and the isolationist policies of early years would have to give way to a more robust defense of the democracies. The US could ill-afford to sit back when so much was at stake.

Truman set up the infrastructure to carry out this new responsibility. He would suffer some setbacks but it was during his Presidency that the ground work to halt Soviet Expansion and eventually turn back the tide of Marxist-Leninist advancement was rooted.

This speaks volumes as to the vision of the man from Lamar, Missouri. He may have been an accidental President but he rose to meet the challenge with ingenuity and homegrown pragmatism and was indeed a great servant of the nation.

Sources

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library & Museum

Harry S. Truman | The White House

The Cold War (1945-1989)

Battle Of Okinawa: Summary, Fact, Pictures and Casualties | HistoryNet

Korean War | Combatants, Summary, Facts, & Casualties

The Green New Deal

My thoughts on Quora

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius

The Green New Deal is a Manifesto and not a very good one at that. The great thing about Manifestos is that everyone can have one. Marx had one, as did Simon Bolivar (Cartagena Manifesto), Robert Peel (Tamworth Manifesto), the Unabomber, Anders Breivik and Charlie Sheen. There is even a site that lists a whole bunch of Manifestos. 1000 Manifesto List - 1000Manifestos.com. In the era of cut and paste, blogging and social media manifestos are in fact a few software assists away from seeing the light and gaining an audience. How to write a manifesto. | Alexandra Franzen

I have read over the so-called Green New Deal three or four times trying to find pragmatic substance to it and I still find it both wanting and dangerous. As a teacher it reminds me of a B- Summative Project that a senior student would hand in for a World Issues Course. Yeah it has all the platitudes and speaks to a lot of issues but has all the depth of a one inch deep pool of water.

Some pictures need no introduction Source: What do Earth, Mars have in common?: Today's Toon

However it is receiving a great deal of publicity. So lets look at what is problematic about the Green New Deal (GND) and why it is indeed so controversial.

1.The Green New Deal interprets the October 2019 IPCC Report (SR15) as though its conclusions are written in stone and must drive policy.

Source: Dan Kennedy: Scientific Illiterate, Global Warming Hysteric

Be wary of the notion of certainty in the Predictive Sciences. .

The ever excellent Nic Lewis, who forced the Scripps institute to wealk back their major study on ocean warming - High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction - provides a detailed analysis of the modelling used in SR15 explaining why the trending analysis appears to be running ‘hot’ based on observational data - Remarkable changes to carbon emission budgets in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C.

The bottom line is that the prediction of future temperature based on mathematical modelling is a notoriously tricky affair (I have personal experience here as an engineer). It is fraught with uncertainty and should be interpreted as such. If you don’t believe me. Take a look at this.

The Blue thin line is the actual data. Look how large the error cone is. Which model works best?

Source: Remarkable changes to carbon emission budgets in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C.

This is not to say that we should disregard the overall trend. I personally believe that the planet is warming at a moderate level and that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a forcing factor. However formulating rigid economic/energy policy that has a far reaching impact based on deference to a certainty of consensus is problematic. As Thomas H. Huxley puts it:

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

2. Even if the Sciences nails the issue head on the solution proposed by the Green New Deal reflect a bias that favors ideology over pragmatism.

The report has a strong anti-nuclear bias. This is especially disappointing as Nuclear Energy is largely carbon neutral. Even climate scientist James Hanson likes the idea. China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power

However the writers of SR15 did not see it that way. Attacking Nuclear As Dangerous, New IPCC Climate Change Report Promotes Land-Intensive Renewables

The Green New Deal echoes the same ideology.

A point to consider - A marker that the issue is ideologically driven is the name calling and bullying that appears to have clouded the Climate Science discipline in particular. Source: 'Dilbert' Tackles Climate Science Absurdity

3. There is a hysterical element to the Green New Deal.

Much of this relies on fears of a great disaster and an apocalyptic vision of the future. However history regularly pours cold water on this. Climate change predictions have been notoriously awful. http://www.aei.org/publication/1...

Take the giant scare about hurricanes. Yes their impacts may be more intense but in terms of frequency increase this is still very much uncertain. Hurricanes and Climate Change | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Nuanced voices need to prevail.

In fact its entirely conceivable that the hysteria itself hurts the cause. http://www.aei.org/publication/c....

4. The Green New Deal clearly has an agenda that extends way beyond concern for the environment

Read the Green New Deal and you will see very clearly that it is a manifesto of Progressive talking points (worker rights, union demands, housing, social engineering etc) that have been deliberately inserted to sell the deal to a larger audience. It is a masterpiece of conflation, that is using ‘concern for the environment’ to market a broader rubric of collectivist ideas to a wider intersectionality. This is completely disingenuous. It is a political battering ram.

The Left Thinks a 'Green New Deal' Could Save Earth and Destroy the GOP

Take a look at these quotes from those in the know.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Source: www.denverpost.com

5. The GND roll out has proved so far to be an exercise in deceit

Along with the Green New Deal came the Green New Deal FAQ, that appeared and then mysteriously disappeared from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s website. Fortunately what happens on the internet has a way of staying on the internet. Green New Deal FAQ.

Reading the answers here it is clear that Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Father of Left wing Authoritarianism would be proud. Considering his work on the popular will this excerpt from the FAQ would certainly resonate - ‘It is possible if we have the political will to do it’ .

Here are a few more statements ‘The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to reorient our entire economy…’ and ‘..the tools of regulation and taxation, used in isolation, will not be enough to quickly and smoothly accomplish the transformation we need to see’.

Who is the we? Is this the people or just a cadre of elite who know what is best for us and are representing a so-called ‘will’? Sounds like a recipe for overreach at the expense of individual liberty.

We have of course seen this before also under the guise of the knowing eye of the state. Five-Year Plans | Definition & Facts and The Great Leap Forward - History Learning Site. I will let the reader evaluate the consequences.

Worth noting is the way AOC and other supporters of the GND misrepresent the success of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Mythical Banking Crisis and the Failure of the New Deal | Hunter Lewis. The New Deal actually delayed the recovery from the Great Depression. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate. Buyer beware.

The Green New Deal will come at a high cost both socially and economically. The payment schedule is driven by wishful thinking and seems ignorant of economics. Wanting it so, does not make it so and messing with an economy that has been on an upswing for some time is pure folly. US economy under Trump: Best in history?

6. The Green New Deal has been endorsed by most of the Democratic Party’s 2020 Presidential Election hopefuls.

Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are all supportive of the Green New Deal. So much so for the Party of Science. The candidates clearly need to be synchronized with one another to win over a primary electorate that is rapidly moving leftward. For moderates in the party this must bring up a few flags as well as several bouts of head shaking. In fact on the National Level it has given the GOP the perfect ammunition to paint the Democrats as a radical unit. Curious to see how the Dems will moderate in anticipation of November 2020 when an appeal to a broader electorate is the only strategy for victory or will this just double down on this hysteria.

Even Democrats Are Wary Of The Green New Deal

GOP Looks to Turn Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal on Democrats

Source: An AOC Valentine

So there it is…More fun and games in the name of politics. However the GND is more than that. It is a blatant attempt to sell a Top Down Package of deliberate social/economic engineering under the guise of advancing the common good. Fresh Face or not it should be tossed onto the heap of bad ideas.

Additional Sources

1. Green New Deal. https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/...
2. Why the Green New Deal Is Happening Now
3. Anti-Nuclear Bias Of UN & IPCC Is Rooted In Cold War Fears Of Atomic And Population Bombs
4. http://tps://www.spectator.co.uk...