Shades of Y2K?

Please!! Dont beat me again!! I submit. I cant take another piece about carbon neutrality and GW!!!

If we take it as a given that "we" have a problem that "we" are contributing to, and if we take it as a further given that there's consensus that "we" need to do something about it, then, yes, he probably IS correct. But better get out your earplugs, because the screams from the "there ain't no such thing as global warming!" crowd will be audible from Mars.

First create a problem and get the crowd to demand to have it fixed.

Second be the solution to the problem so it is fixed beneficial to you.

The crowd now can not blame you because they asked you to resolve it.

The crowd does not see that unintended consequences that benefit you were in fact intentional.

Hegelian tactics 101

This is not always the case but if you filter social issues with this in mind it will be more prevalent than you want.

Brad

Yes, I don't disagree with your take on this. However, the tricky part is this:

"...get the crowd to demand to have it fixed..."

If it's easy to get the crowd to demand doing anything, then odds are it needs doing. The vox populi is, after all, made up of so many individual voices these days that it's like pushing rope to get a crowd of any size to agree on anything. And OBTW, ensuring the fix is in your favor can be a twister, too...

I disagree the trick is to get the crowd to believe problem, then blow it out of proportion, sometime literally. Then when you act they will be releived that they don't have to worry about it any more. The crowd can't fix it because they can't reach a consenses, or even agree to disagree. Once emotions are high enough logic is suspended. act quickly then the crowd can't even agree on the intent.

The patriot act is a prime example. Whether 911 was manufactured or not didn't matter. The seemingly good fix to U.S. security was ready and passed. Later when they realized the error no consenses could be reached to fix the patriot act. The American people lost more freedom then than even in the U.S. civil war.

Is golbal warming a problem?

Who benifits from its politics?

Of what use is it as Red Herring?(distractor from other issues)

To whom is it a benifit no consenses can be reached and why?

Why is some data over presented and other, just as valid data, ignored?

Oh what tangled web of worms we weave when we practics to decieve.

2 Bits from

Brad

"If it's easy to get the crowd to demand doing anything, then odds are it needs doing."

-----

When you first create the perception that something needs doing, the vox populi naturally follow. Recall Nazi Germany's campaign against the Jews. Rome's campaign against the Christians. Dubya's campaign against the Muslims. And we actually believe we're engaged in a "war on terror." It was so easy.

All too true - tell a big enough lie, who could doubt it? Tell a lie often enough, people will accept it as truth. Guess I'm just a bloody optimist!