The Low Information Voter
A typical assessment of rank and file democrat voters. I make a distinction here between the liberal “intelligentsia” who really do know what they’re doing and the common democrat who is clueless as to the true agenda of the party they are loyal to. LIV traits appear to NOT be a function of education level or even raw intelligence, as LIVs are common among the very highly educated to the very uneducated among us, as well as penetrate all racial and religious boundaries. An individual’s mental attitudes appears to be the main factor. Two of these that create LIVs are as follows:
-Mental laziness of not investigating the pressing political and social issues and evaluating all sides of the debates on them. There are a number of sources where information of all sorts can be gathered. Television, talk radio, newspapers and other various print publications, the internet especially and the education system would be the five major sources.
-Blind loyalty to the democrat party. The democrats are very good at inculcating brand loyalty. They do this primarily by fear, probably the most powerful of the emotions. This mental manipulation creates most of the LIVs, somewhere around 75 percent of them alone. After fear is properly instilled and maintained, the LIV will tune out any other input. The Party creates the unfounded or even real fear due to their policies, then convinces the poor LIV that only they have the answer.
Environmentalism is a potent weapon in the liberal arsenal to keep LIVs on the plantation. Liberals hate America, they hate capitalism as a system because they can’t control it and decrying the impact on the environment by industry has proven to be a great horse for them to ride over the past few decades. There is probably no better explanation of the radical environmental movement and its strangle hold on political leftism than one offered by Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder. Turning away from the radicalism, though still an environmentalist, Moore has written:
“A lot of environmentalists are stuck in the 1970s and continue to promote a strain of leftish romanticism about idyllic rural village life powered by windmills and solar panels. They idealize poverty, seeing it as a noble way of life, and oppose all large developments.”
“The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas.
To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.”
“Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. “
I would refine Moore’s closing comment, that the warmist/liberal agenda is one of the greatest threats to our liberty and prosperity we face today. As Moore also correctly observed, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “peace movement” really didn’t have anything to do. As America enjoyed the “peace dividend” under Clinton, as well as eight years of his democrat administration (peace-niks hardly ever take on democrats for some “odd” reason), there were simply no American military exercises (other than bombing the wrong side in Bosnia) or nuclear weapons systems for the peace-niks to attempt to undermine, as America was always its prime target. What LIVs don’t know is that the “peace movement” which came into being during the Vietnam war was hugely financed by the Soviet Union in order to undermine the United States military.
Stanislav Lunev, was a GRU (Soviet foreign military intelligence) officer and the highest ranking GRU officer to ever defect to the United States. In 1992 he defected to the United States, then served as a consultant to the FBI and the CIA and is now in the Witness Protection Program. He describes in his book, “Through the Eyes of the Enemy”, GRU and KGB efforts and success at instigating and financing the peace movement that strongly and adversely affected American war efforts in Vietnam and American efforts against the Soviet Union itself.
“While the GRU instructors would not state it directly, they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success. The GRU had a massive presence in both North and South Vietnam; their operatives worked under cover of the North Vietnamese Special Services. Our instructors also told us about how the GRU influenced the American public. The GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad. Funding was provided via undercover operatives or front organizations. These would fund another group that in turn would fund student organizations. The GRU also helped Vietnam fund its propaganda campaign as a whole.
What will be a great surprise to the American people is that the GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States that it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese. The antiwar propaganda cost the GRU more than $1 billion, but as history shows, it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the U.S. military.”
KGB General Oleg Kalugin has testified of his overseeing the operations to create “all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, womens movements, trade union movements and campaigns against U.S. Missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons and much more”.
The “peace movement” is a generic name for liberals’ actions against the United States as it stood as the beacon of hope and light against godless communist Soviet Union aggression. The Soviets viewed American liberals as “useful idiots”. Many liberals would deny that their goal was to destroy the United States and favor the USSR in the cold war that existed for nearly half a century. These liberals would simply maintain they wanted a world at peace, but primarily blamed the United States for the tension in the world. Liberals almost always turned a blind eye to the abuses of Soviet Russia and its stated goal of conquest because liberals favored socialism or even communism over capitalism.
The Soviets saw things much differently. They viewed the millions of liberalized young people that sprang up in America as fertile ground for recruitment into organizations that served to weaken American resolve. The liberals of the 60’s now completely dominate the democrat party and control nearly all organs that shape opinion in America.
The communists succeeded beyond their wildest expectations as America is at, if not beyond, the tipping point predicted nearly 60 years ago by Nikita Khrushchev,
“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
Well, as it turned out the United States outlived communist Russia, and it was not solely the actions of Soviet infiltration and money that has brought us to the dark point we see today in America, but it was significant and meshed well with the other forces at work in our nation. It would be accurate to say that the United States was assaulted by a “perfect storm”. The religious and moral rot had already set in several decades in advance of the Soviets, which actually made the ground fertile for the seeds the Soviets ended up planting.
A nation that was in the process of rejecting God and its founding principles, a nation where progressives were attempting to lead the nation in new and radical directions had millions of citizens ready to “fall like overripe fruit” for just about any cause or “ism”, as long as it was opposed to the current structure of America and there has been no ideology so diametrically opposed to America than communism. Today, perhaps, we could add islam to that short list which partially explains the democrat love affair with that war cult.
What America fought against nearly half a century has now coopted our largest political party. It has elected twice a president who in his younger years was a Marxist. Obama was clearly a Marxist, when did he ever change his mind?
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” B.H. Obama
It’s the “cool” thing today for liberals to be not so undercover commie sympathizers, in fact they’re often very brazen about it. How many wear Che Guevara t-shirts or hang his poster. Che was nothing but a racist, cold blooded murdering thug who would have fit right in as commandant of a Nazi concentration camp. A flag with Che’s face on it was photographed hanging in an Obama campaign office in Houston, TX in 2008. Castro himself is a darling of the left, including some U.S. Congressmen.
Obama’s former White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn stated that Mao Zedong, mass murderer of 50 to 80 million of his countrymen, was one of her “favorite political philosophers”. A little round picture of Mao was hung on Obama’s first Christmas tree in the Whitehouse. Of course, when pressed, Obama claimed he didn’t know about it and even if we assume that’s true, what must the atmosphere of the Obama White House be like that underlings would feel quite comfortable in hanging the Mao decoration? Jay Carney, Obama’s former White House Press Secretary has his kitchen decorated with Soviet Union propaganda posters.
Love for communism abounds in our modern liberal intelligentsia class and it doesn’t appear to be the “good” things that communism promised in theory but rather the power that the ruling elite accumulated and the means of that accumulation that interests them. The global warming scam has proven to be their ticket to this accumulation of power.
Western liberals have embraced this new environmental radicalism not to improve the environment, but to “cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism”. Since 1992 with the election of Slick Willie with his side-kick Algore especially, the democrat party as a whole has almost single-mindedly pushed the global warming agenda. This environmental religion was tailor made for their purposes. The liberal education mills would indoctrinate the nation’s youth with the fantasy of mankind catastrophically warming the planet, the media would print or discuss the warming “scare of the day” as nearly every conceivable weather event would be portrayed as caused by the warming.
More tornados-less tornados, more hurricanes-less hurricanes, more-snow, less snow, more rain-less rain, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc, you name it, the warmists have a tall tale in their repertoire to cover every base. With most of the science community, at least at the universities, corrupted by tax dollars to support research, in competition to see who can create the scariest scenarios of adverse climate caused by man of course, in order to grab headlines, acclaim and more of our money. Their prophecies often contradict and there are as many “computer programs” to predict climate change as there are universities. All of this, because there MAY have been some very slight warming for about 15 years, sandwiched in between the cooling of the ‘70’s and static global temps since the late ‘90’s.
The liberal solution to the “dangers” of “climate change” always increases government control over our lives. All the warming movement is, is just that, a political movement and behaves much like a religion or a cult. All of the disaffected hippies, socialists, communists and power crazed lunatics of the 1960’s and their ideological children have glommed onto the scam to advance their anti-American and anti-West agendas.
Poor LIVs just simply don’t know that
– The “97 Percent consensus” is nothing but a fabrication. That lie was concocted by warming cult member John Cook, researcher at the Global Change Institute, who after evaluating 12,000 peer reviewed science papers dealing with climate change published over a 20 year period from 1991 to 2011, claimed a conclusion that 97 percent of these scientists agreed that man was responsible for heating the planet. The real truth was that only 65 papers “explicitly endorsed” the Kyoto proposition that “climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.” Instead of 97 percent, the real percentage is actually only 0.54 Percent!!! The LIV only hears the 97 percent from democrat mouthpieces and never bother to learn the truth.
-A recent peer-reviewed paper reveals that only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers agree with the man-made global warming crisis proposition. They join the 50 percent of meteorologists.
-There is a revolt within the community of physicists. If there was any group of scientists I would tend to trust it would be the physicists, as “physics” underlays any scientific endeavor. Sadly, however, the APS, the American Physical Society, like most science organizations, has been coopted by the warmers. Noted physicist Hal Lewis had this to say about the climate scam and its effect on science and the APS,
“I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff (climategate) without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.”
In his letter of resignation from the APS, Dr. Lewis went on to say,
“The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs…
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare… So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.”
Dr. Lewis has also written-
“I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.
So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you—you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.
So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, of MIT calls the global warming “crisis” a religion saying, “Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”
In 2009, 67 prominent German scientists and 189 interested experts submitted a letter to Angela Merkel asking her to reconsider her beliefs in the man-made global warming scam and turn from her present course that was endangering German survival as a prosperous industrialized nation writing in part –
“…Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.
A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.
More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.
The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility…
In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately, in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.”
The above is just a tiny fraction of all the news and information you’ll never hear from the sources used by LIVs, that’s why they’re LIVs.
Yet liberals, intent on keeping their sheep in the fold use the warming religion to advance their agenda.“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama said. “And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader – a global leader – in the fight against climate change.” Obama, 2013.
“This is not just a problem for countries on the coast or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.” Obama, May, 2015.
“When it comes to climate change that hour is almost upon us…In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity.” Obama, December, 2015 at the global warming confab in Paris, France.
“The data is unforgiving…No matter what the deniers try to assert. Sea levels are rising. Ice caps are melting. Storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc…The threat is real but so is the opportunity,” Hillary, 2014.
Global warming is “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.” Clinton, 2015.
Whether by the warming scam, income inequality (the abnormal and dangerous inequality caused primarily by them), moral issues or any of the other many liberal caused problems, our domestic enemies never sleep. While productive patriotic Americans go about their busy lives working, rearing children and minding their own business, liberals work 24/7 to undermine our nation.
If liberals could, they would just get all of this “nonsense of democratic voting” over with and with a putsch, assume dictatorial control over our lives. But they know they can’t get away with that, so they just keep chipping away by dumbing down and frightening the indigenous and importing more and more voters. Keeping their Low Information Voters on the plantation and having their education mills and media create even more is critical to their success of undermining and conquering our nation.