Fascism vs Neoliberalism w/ Chris Hedges

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. Is this the same Chrissie Hedges that wrote Saddam has WMD’s for the NYT in the Fall of 2002?

    • The very same lying sack of shit.

      BTW the Bushes (41) just left a hospital in Houston – Nice warm weather, but what are they both wearing? Long coats with PURPLE scarves- just like those the Clintons wore on election night. Looks like the Purple Revolution is a two-party affair.

      • they are looking for a new name for it. The Third Way think tank is working on that as we speak. Of course, it’s been around since it was considered impolite to mention the term “neoliberalism” after it got all the bad press back in the early 90s.

    • same Chris Hedges that worked as an embedded journalist for a number of “humanitarian interventions” way back when and the same Chris Hedges I have often taken issue with SINCE 2002. That said, its still a good interview with good, truthful, information discussed. that’s why I put it here.

  2. Scott,

    Take a look at this interview from the John B Wells show. It is definitely worth watching the full interview.

  3. Aside from his unshakeable conviction regarding “climate change” (used to be “Anthropogenic Global Warming” but “climate change” is harder to delegitimise obviously since it irrefutably happens!) Hedges is on the money.

    • I have found a few items I would disagree with him on over the years, but Global Warming is the biggest one. In this interview, he is pretty accurate in his assessment.

    • I don’t mean to sound contrary, but I’m curious why many commenters here seem to favor the climate change/AGW denial angle? I get that TPTSB have politicized, spun, and confused the issue. I get that Al Gore is full of shit. But I don’t understand how AGW theory gets dismissed when the effects are so visible. Maybe it’s an east coast/west coast thing?

      • I’m a physicist who used to believe very strongly in AGW but looked into the theory more closely and came to the conclusion that increasing CO2 levels cannot have the sorts of devastating consequences claimed. That we simply don’t understand the systems well enough (clouds especially having hugely complex effects) and that the whole debate has been so politicised that the proper scientific fallback position of extreme scepticism no longer applies to the field. In a healthy scientific debate the data always takes precedence but in this case the models are presumed to be valid even after they fail to provide accurate forecasts. Science is upsidedown here and, as for money, well both sides have highly vested interests.

      • As a physicist I was a firm believer in AGW until I began looking more closely into the theory behind it (something I ought to have done from the beginning but scientists are sometimes lazy too). CO2 CANNOT by itself cause catastrophic warming – this is the accepted scientific position although it is rarely mentioned by the media. So warming requires many feedback processes (the primary driver being a theorised increase in water vapour) but these effects are still poorly understood (especially the role of clouds). In any case, this is hugely complicated and so physicists have to rely on computer models. If the atmosphere and oceans were better understood then these models would produce results that correlated closely between themselves and with measured data but in fact they do not – the forecasts have not been very accurate and have over-estimated the warming. In ordinary science this would be reason to ditch the models but here instead we look for reasons why the data instead might need correcting – hmmm, that’s science (as I was taught it at Imperial College) turned completely upsidedown. Problem is that this field is highly politicised and science and politics really don’t mix (or shouldn’t). And unfortunately, both sides of this debate have a vested interests (often financial) – the scientists need faith in AGW theory to keep the research grants flowing and the IPCC gurus are into ‘carbon credits’. It’s a sorry state of affairs and the drop in integrity within an important branch of physics genuinely saddens me as a scientist – we are trained to take a totally impartial stance. Yet today tell me a scientist who says “I am deeply offended by the perjorative ‘climate denier’ – science embodies the systematisation of scepticism as its core and it is our responsibility to constantly and unreservedly scrutinise the orthodox view.” I say it – and that makes me a heretic!

        • It is sad that our country does not support scientists without them having to lie for funding.
          Extreme Climate change has occurred throughout history…. it is an ‘earth’ thing…. happens without our help……
          you are not a heretic…. you are a hero.

          • Certainly climate varies without human intervention. But what’s happening these days is something different. I agree that academia is crooked and prone to groupthink but I don’t believe there’s a vast commie conspiracy to cook the data on climate change. I’m more inclined to believe there’s a vast corporatist conspiracy influencing our views on the problem.

            • since when have neoliberal globalists been “commies”? The idea is control over nations resources, industry and population and gaining all of that, not by regime change “humanitarian interventions” or color revolutions, those are archaic devices. What they hope for is to hand over control to an un-elected board of technocrats who can tell every nation what they can do with their industry and resources and who they can do business with. If they dont follow the prescribed doctrine, then they will be labeled climate “terrorists” or “insurgents” or whatever the case may be and the global community would immediately move to regime change them. Imagine a world where Colin Powell doesn’t have to lie to the UNSC to get authorization to bomb Iraq. That’s corporate fascism, not communism. How do you think “the commies” got IPCC to cook the books (which they did, by the way). This is like when someone like Di$info Jone$ calls President Obama a “socialist”. The last thing they want you to know is that their “anti-establishment” economic ideology is actually the same as the Washington Consensus. They know a large percentage of people are wise to globalisation… the last thing they want is for you to know, they are pushing it’s economic foundation on you and getting you to accept it and demand it. it’s kinda like Donald Trump’s “revolution” in that regard.

        • Wall of controversy, your comment as a physicist is articulate and hugely important. Would you provide some physics-oriented sources or leads for the rest of us to explore?

          • Totally agree with Scott – the notion that anything happening today in the West is a “commie” conspiracy is nuts. “Commie” plays well as a slur in American, and so it is freely attached to every kind of US government initiative (government itself being supposedly evil – Trump is about to prove the falsity of this laughable view). But there really is no true left in the US today – certainly not in any positions of power. Sanders would hardly qualify as a ‘socialist’ in Europe and Obama is only marginally to the left of Attila the Hun… who killed a lot less people.

            Globalisation is the main agenda today and this means a technocratic corporatocracy – and in enabling this outcome ‘climate change’ and ‘the war on terror’ work usefully together. One appeals better to the ‘liberal left’ and the other to the ‘nationalist right’. Both permit restrictions on our hard-won freedoms.

            As for a physics-oriented source challenging AGW, well there are many more than you perhaps imagine but perhaps the best on technical details I’ve come across is Roy Spencer’s here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

  4. Trump thinks he’s his own man??? Nah. He’s not that clueless. It’s a marketing/P.R. strategy.

    Hedges seemed to tell the truth in most of this. I don’t trust him, but I’m more interested in the message than the messenger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: