You know, I find something very scary about the attitude of those who would scare us with fears of a left-wing conspiracy to implement a one-world government under the UN. Such people are highly vocal about their ‘freedom’, their ‘right not to be told what to do,’ and how they simply won’t stand for any of it.
The thing that, I think, scares me most about such a view is the possibility that it might hold sway, and we’d end up in a world in which I’m forced to do things that these people want.
Oh, wait, I’m already in their crazy, topsy-turvy, insanity-ruled world. My mistake.
Since nothing much else makes sense, it won’t hurt if I add a picture of a friend of mine (now, sadly, passed away) posing in New York with someone who is, in his world, giving a positive message that, on this side of the Pond, means something entirely different (originally referring, so legend has it, to English bowmen at Agincourt taunting the enemy).
To me, my friend’s grin says it all — even though she later admitted that she didn’t understand what I was whittering on about (but then, she’s Canadian, so go figure) :)
Communication: “a difficult concept. It is not logical”, as Saavik once said. OK, she was talking about humo(u)r; and I was trying to talk about freedom. So, sue me.
Have a good day.
Wibble 
I have lost count of how many times I have pointed out to people that the only conspiracy for which there is any evidence is a right-wing one determined to prevent the business as usual bandwagon from continuing to roll off a cliff…
BTW, please visit my new 1-star review of James Delingpole’s re-hashing of Watermelons on amazon.co.uk, as I think it is going to be attacked and/or disliked by his acolytes (and I need to boost my positive ratings in order to ensure it is easily visible and/or encourage people to read it)
Thanks,
Martin.
LikeLike
I think you’re just paranoid, Martin (although that’s no guarantee that they’re not out to get you) ;)
LikeLike
No it’s not paranoia – just look what happened when Mann’s new book (on the Hockey Stick Wars) was reviewed by John Cook on amazon… The message goes around and people bombard your review with negative feedback and/or comments.
LikeLike
You can’t win campaigns such as the one you’ve chosen to get involved in (and good for you: somebody has to pipe up against the madness). As Noam Chomsky says: “the mudslinger always wins” :(
PS I was joking about the paranoia! (see original post: communication: it is a difficult concept; it is not logical).
LikeLike
Are you serious, going on with this right wing/left wing nonsense? Recently, someone (cough cough) talked to me about divisiveness. How about applying it here, hm?
There is a conspiracy about a one world government, but it’s neither lefty loosey or righty tighty. Heads, da banksters win. Tails, da banksters win.
LikeLike
Serious? Oh, yes, I’m very serious. I agree with you completely that left/right wing splits are nonsense — and very divisive (by design: what I think you might call a part of ‘the spectacle’). There’s a big difference between pointing out that there are those who would scare us with phantoms as a means to discourage effective change on the one hand, and buying in to the labels they apply to themselves and others on the other.
As for a one world government: your comment implies that you think that it’s a bad thing. I say: we’re all humans, and we’re fools to divide ourselves simply by the accident of our place of birth. Equality means nothing unless it applies to all.
Of course, you’re right that da banksters need to be reined in; we’d be even greater fools to have organised crime in control of the entire planet. Where’s ‘the untouchables’ when we need ’em?
LikeLike
The reason you come across as divisive is that you pick on the righties. It’s an equal opportunity panic-mongering out there… whereas your language implies one side. As in: “You know, I find something very scary about the attitude of those who would scare us with fears of a left-wing conspiracy to implement a one-world government under the UN. Oh, wait, I’m already in their crazy, topsy-turvy, insanity-ruled world. My mistake.”
Lefties regularly run out yelling about right winger conspiracy to turn everything into a theocracy et al. Jeez. Tell both sides. Use language that does not offend the other side, or offends both equally. Eh?
As for one world govt… In these conditions?! Are you nuts? But of course, we already have it, to a significant extent. Organized crime already IS in control of the entire planet. Why do you think everything is being plundered at faster and faster rates?
I would be for nested governance structures all the way up to planetary level, if it were possible. Right now, it’s not. World government, on the model of what government means today? Yikes. Another effing totalitarian nightmare. (Or at best, the rule of the power-mad pencil-pushers, like the EU.)
LikeLike
I’m not really sure how to respond, leavergirl; but thanks for responding. Perhaps someone else can progress this otherwise directionless discussion?
LikeLike
I find it sad that there is left wing-right wing divide when it comes to environmental issues in North America. People on the right assume that if we were to enact rules and regulations to protect our soil, air and water that it would “destroy the economy”, “stop economic growth” and “take away your first-born child” (OK. I made up that last one). But this attitude demonstrates a very narrow view of the world.
The perfect example is new air quality regulations for coal-fired plants in the US. “The right” say that the regulations will hurt the economy. What they ignore to mention is the billions (with a “b”) in healthcare costs and the thousands of lives that it will save by improving air quality. Our current system considers those costs “externalities” which society pays for. In a true capitalist system, those costs would be internalized by the company that causes them, showing the true cost of a product or service.
Sweden forced companies to internalize the cost of climate change in the form of a carbon tax in 1991. Their carbon emissions have been reduced and their economy has grown 44% since then. So much for “destroying the economy”.
(Sorry for getting a little off topic!)
LikeLike
No need for apologies; your arguments are entirely valid, and not really off-topic. Most nations seem unable to contemplate the issues except in terms of their own narrow, restrictive interests. We need greater international cooperation; a pipe-dream, I know. The decisive failure of the Kyoto Protocol has proven that those we ‘choose’ to ‘lead’ us aren’t sufficiently mature to be trusted with the tasks they claim that they are qualified for.
Sweden’s successes certainly deserve greater recognition. I’m fully convinced that we’ve reached the stage of needing porcine aviation to save the day.
LikeLike
If you want greater int’l cooperation, start with your rightwing neighbor. And I suggest you skip the stuff about right wing conspiracy while talking! ;-)
Jp, once people start talking to one another without demonizing, then agreements can come about. Otherwise… eh, not likely.
LikeLike
I’m sorry… to which ‘neighbour’ do you refer?
LikeLike
leavergirl,
Although I agree with you in theory, in practice, it doesn’t work that way.
For example: My focus is the environment. Specifically climate change and sustainability. And on those issues, If you attempt to “cooperate” with the “right-wing neighbor”, you are faced with a very difficult task. “He” has a general lack of trust in the science. “He” believes that you are attempting to destroy the economy. “He” has an obsession with economic growth which trumps nearly all other concerns. You see it in the news, you see it in politics and those of us who have blogs on environmental issues see it in comments and discussions that we moderate.
And, just like my previous comment, this is not “demonizing”. It is an analysis of the challenge that you face when looking at environmental issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not say it was easy. What have you tried?
I have found the following useful:
1) weed out the trolls; don’t feed them
2) do engage those who are truly concerned… look for underlying commonalities and values… learn to use a language that bridges the differences… and show real interest in what the person is trying to say, at least in the beginning, before dismissing them as your three points above indicate
(?)
LikeLike
I’ve tried facts, science, objectivity, respect, appealing to people’s sense of responsibility, their ethics. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
LikeLike
What, you live in the land of the greens, with nary a rightwing neighbor about? Where is that? ;-)
LikeLike
I suspect that I live on an entirely different planet from the one most others inhabit. My planet has the distinct advantage, even at this late, highly-polluted stage, of a potential utopian future; a dream that is constantly denigrated by people who accuse me of a lack of realism while simultaneously claiming that tool-wielding ape-descendants are smart enough to solve any problem by the clever manipulation of bits of folding paper of various colours and sizes.
LikeLike
Tee-hee. Tell us more! :-)
LikeLike
Not much point, really, since the planet most people live on might as well be scheduled for demolition by a Vogon Constructor Fleet — that should make some people happy, since at least that way someone will make a profit on the deal (even if it is measured in SHOUTING).
[with apologies to Douglas Adams. RIP, WAG*.]
* What A Genius
LikeLike
I see. No, I have not had much luck with appeals either, jp. I recommend checking out the Non-violent Communication list of needs. They are universal, everybody shares them, and underneath all the blather… there they are. Once you learn to speak inclusively, it works pretty well. But the hard part is… often, we’d rather fight for the cause than find a path to those who do not share it. That’s where I get stymied…. I get caught up in the arguments, and forget about the person…
LikeLike
Are you referring to the ‘Needs Inventory‘ from the Center for Nonviolent Communication?
LikeLike
Yeah. There are lists out there that are longer, more encompassing. Same idea though. Needs are universal, and feelings cannot be argued away.
LikeLike
You said it, errrr… can we agree on ‘sibling’? ;)
LikeLike
:-)
LikeLike