In 2009 the Climategate scandals started breaking from a Wiki-Leaks-like whistleblower exposing the East Anglia University’s distortion of temperature data. (Download and read the actual emails. Then make up your mind.) Now (2016-17) we have NOAA and NASA data manipulations to make each current year the hottest being exposed.
So, far the scientific community, the part funded by climate research dollars, is totally opposed to any discussion of anti-warming ideas. This is a budget in the trillions. For them it is a huge financial threat. Do you know Russia and China are preparing for global cooling? Why are both putting so much emphasis on warm water ports?
If this was just a matter of some people being wrong about warming, get those idiots out there and let the facts embarrass them. Instead the climate community wants laws to stop those that may speak in opposition to their ‘the planet is doomed’ claims. Just give them the money they need and they will stop the 600 million years of the planet’s climate change. Sure.
Hillary Clinton was exposed by Wiki-Leaks. Whether it was the Russians helping Wiki-Leaks (no evidence yet) or as more and more rumors claim the US intelligence agencies (no evidence yet) we can’t know. But, is how the criminal was exposed the real issue? The DNC + Hillary fixed an election to lock Bernie out. At the most the Russians “influenced”. Which is worse?
Exposing facts about politicians is a huge issue. The significance can’t be quantified in dollars as the true measure here is power. But, free speech is not to their benefit. In the political mind the Internet must be controlled, no free speech allowed.
I could go on with more examples.
There are more and more groups that find limiting of speech on certain subjects is in their best interest. So, it is not surprising that we have a conspiracy of attitude. The idea of conspiracy of attitude is that the conspirators do not have to meet, even know each other, nor agree. They have a common shared interest. Each does their bit to further their interest in the common interest, helping out where they can for their reasons. Each little bit is like the atmospheric micro-influences that build into a hurricane.
The only group who has as an interest in preserving free speech is the individual… citizens.
What do we do? How do we protect our right to free speech? Simply stated we oppose anyone that wants to limit speech for ANY reason.
When someone says ‘oppose that guy because he wants to limit free speech’, do we oppose ‘that guy’? Maybe. But, first we look to see if we are being lied to. Then we look to see what ‘that guy’ is actually doing or proposing. Then decide.
Seeing the Signs
It is important to recognize who is opposing speech. In the 1920’s 30’s the German National Socialist Party created a group we know as the brownshirts. The brownshirts attended political rallies and tried to convince people their ideology should be adopted. Failing to convince people of their ideology they beat the crap out of anyone that didn’t agree or spoke against them or their ideology. The KKK was/is similar. They both silenced their opposition. However, once in power, Hitler killed the brownshirts (Night of the Long Knives) as they had too much power/influence.
Today’s radicals are using brownshirt’s tactics. They stop opposition by force, not superior ideas.
More sophisticated politicians and special interest groups are attacking free speech and using psychologists to sugarcoat proposed legislation in wording people find acceptable. ‘Stop hate speech. Pass a law.’ It is amazing how many people fail to realize such ideas are about squelching free speech.
My point is many parties have an interest in abolishing free speech. Tactics are sophisticated. Blatant attacks (brownshirts) to sophisticated attacks encapsulated in socially acceptable buzz words like: ‘Save the World – silence deniers’. Find me one person that denies climate change… a strawman warrior in the fight against free speech…
Think… research… think some more… act…