Donald Hank
Global "leaders" want felons decriminalized
Fling open the gates of the Bastille! Free them all!
By Donald Hank
The title of the report linked below, and appearing on the Yahoo home page under the innocuous sounding title "Global leaders call for major shift to decriminalize drugs," is part of a sinister propaganda campaign, relying on unbacked statements by out-of-work politicians who want to legalize criminals.
The first prong of this campaign is to promote global governance by suggesting that there are such things as "global leaders," i.e., unelected self-anointed technocrats, who play an important role in the lives of ordinary people. Actually, there is no such thing as a "global leader" because, so far, the world does not have a sovereign global government. Nations are, so far, still free and sovereign, but are threatened by such propaganda as this, which is a subtle suggestion that a global central government (a technocracy) is acceptable. Actually, the experiments with global government have all failed or, as in the case of the latest attempt, the EU, are in the process of disintegrating (triggered by the Greek collapse) and lead inevitably to dictatorships because the people pushing global governance are not democratically minded. To understand why I say that, just read this article by UK politician Sonya Porter. They also lack technical and real-world knowledge needed to solve problems, all the while displaying exceptional persuasive skills — obviously a dismal set of circumstances for everyone whose lives they touch with their ineptitude.
The second prong of the campaign is aimed at decriminalizing criminals. Drug dealers have waged war on their own people in Mexico and Colombia and kill indiscriminately (but note: only stable, anti-terror leaders in the Middle East are condemned by Western "leaders" for doing this). The cartels have grown so much in power that the government fears them. In Mexico, they have infiltrated major sectors of the national police and armed forces. These are inhumanly cruel, savage thugs who must be caught and dealt with harshly. Yet "world leaders" want to set them free. Regarding decriminalization and its results, Holland is a prime example of the failure of this plan. Holland's experiment, initiated under the banner of legalization as a way to reduce drug use, has actually led to increased crime and drug use. Permissive drug policies in the US, beginning under Carter, also led to increased drug use, including among young people who should be studying. The result was a crackdown in the 80s.
The third prong is support for open borders. The subtle suggestion is that the real culprit in the cartel crime and gang violence that has swept the US Southwest and threatens major US cities everywhere, is not the notoriously porous border with Mexico but rather the fact that foolish Americans continue to criminalize drugs, which in fact are perfectly harmless for us and our children.
The linked Yahoo article tells only one side of the story and includes none of the results of the drug legalization experiments alluded to above. Gullible people reading the Yahoo article will reason that Obama's open border policies are not a factor in America's burgeoning crime rate, blaming instead our insistence on criminalizing drug sales. Yes, if only these benighted Americans could accept these drug shipments and the consequences of drug use on their children, then everything would be fine.
What the mainstream media, as well as the elitists in "education," the universities, professionals and, yes, the churches (not only are they not an exception, they are ringleaders in stealth propaganda) have done is not only criminal, it is an assault on independent human cognition (thought) itself.
The article linked above, omits any detail on the consequences of drug legalization, presenting instead the opinions of supposed leaders who are nowhere quoted as providing evidence of their views.
And this article is typical of today's editorials. Westerners everywhere are being trained not to think but rather to imitate a consensus of pseudo-scientific "thought" or rather propaganda. Thus, what many "educated" professionals in the schools, colleges, pulpits, media and so on have taught you to do over the last 50 years or so is not to think but to accept without question the opinions of so-called "scientists" and "experts" who themselves only regurgitate the opinions of their bosses and the rest of their community using thinly veiled pseudo-scientific language and psycho-babble.
But note that accepting the opinions of people wearing an aura of "science" (many of whom are not scientists at all but in fact, journalists, psychologists and the like "professionals" who are trained chiefly in the art of propaganda) isn't the only problem. The problem is the public, which still accepts this propaganda as the genuine article, without question. And they are very good at persuading the public. Or rather, I should say, they have trained the public to follow them to such an extent that the public no longer knows how to think independently of them.
And yet, like an old college pal I ran into recently, people quote these propagandists and claim that in so doing, they are using "science" to reach conclusions and make decisions. Ordinary people are duped into believing that they are intellectuals, superior beings at the top of the evolutionary chain, when in fact, they haven't used a scintilla of independent thinking. Thus, they substitute a consensus of the "educated" for science. My pal told me he uses science to refute Christianity and suggested I was unscientific. Yet when I asked him by what cognitive mechanism he had arrived at his conclusions, and why he thought my thinking was inferior, he was stymied.
If he could have articulated his cognitive method, it would no doubt have been something like this:
Academics said it, I believe it and that settles it.
And yet, for him I was the fanatic because I believe in God.
The "experts" tell us that if we disagree with Obama's policies, we are racists. If we don't accept the "climate change" theory, we are polluters and enemies of the earth.
And many believe this tripe because they don't know what independent scientific thinking (human cognition) is. They haven't a clue.
Well, for those who don't know, true scientific thinking, in a nutshell, is always based on the scientific method, which has been developed in some form or other since Aristotle and was perfected in the Middle Ages. Simply put, this method of thinking, consists of
1 — observation,
2 — deriving a hypothesis (guess) based on that observation (using inductive reasoning),
3 — testing the hypothesis by further observation (in the lab, this means experimentation) under controlled conditions.
4 — drawing conclusions from this testing (using deductive reasoning) to derive a working theory that can be verified independently by others.
Before this method was developed, the sophists would sit around and argue issues without ever consulting the evidence. They believed pure reason (with no supporting facts) was superior to facts. This supremely unscientific method is illustrated by the parable of wise men arguing about the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. The debate went on for years and the participants whose reasoning power was the most brilliant vaunted their skill and patted themselves on the back for their oratory excellence.
Until one day, an humble laborer brought them the news: he had actually counted the number of teeth in a horse's mouth.
That was the end of the erudite discussion.
In real life, you can apply this in a modified form, for example, by on-line research, personal observations, or reading results of testing or observations of unbiased reporters.
For example, to test the hypothesis that opposing Obama's policies makes people racist, you can find writings by blacks who oppose Obama's ideas and see what they say.
You can also choose from among your friends or famous people individuals you know not to be racist and look at what they say about Obama's ideas and policies.
Finally, you can easily find reading matter about how socialism has failed in the past everywhere it has been tried, including in black African countries like Zimbabwe, or how welfare and affirmative action, for example, have hurt blacks in inner cities.
You can look at unemployment statistics, crime rates, school dropout rates, etc, for black people before and after the institution of welfare.
All of these methods are scientific because they depend on your skills in analyzing raw data and not on a consensus of the "educated."
It is almost surrealistic that mankind is returning to those primitive sophist methods where brilliance of oratory is replacing actual scientific research in the most vital areas of our lives and where the most polished politicians with the greatest skills in mendacity rule over intelligent people.
As evidence of this sinister development, modern philosophers and propagandists tell us that we are in a post-modern world where traditional methods of scientific inquiry are obsolete. They further tell us that there is no such thing as objective truth.
But they fall into a trap of their own making, for if one can say with certainty that there is no such thing as objectivity, then the universities lose their raison d'être and may as well shut their doors. No statement made by anyone amounts to a hill of beans. Indeed, as universities are completely taken over by "progressives" who deny the existence of objective knowledge, it is getting harder and harder for them to find enough gullible students to pay the bills.
Without government largesse, many would no longer be standing.
I say let them close their doors until they restore the missing ingredient: independent human cognition.
Yahoo Propaganda:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110601/ts_yblog_thelookout/global-leaders-call-for-a-major-shift-to-decriminalize-drugs
Holland experiment
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/solom2.htm
© Donald Hank
June 3, 2011
The title of the report linked below, and appearing on the Yahoo home page under the innocuous sounding title "Global leaders call for major shift to decriminalize drugs," is part of a sinister propaganda campaign, relying on unbacked statements by out-of-work politicians who want to legalize criminals.
The first prong of this campaign is to promote global governance by suggesting that there are such things as "global leaders," i.e., unelected self-anointed technocrats, who play an important role in the lives of ordinary people. Actually, there is no such thing as a "global leader" because, so far, the world does not have a sovereign global government. Nations are, so far, still free and sovereign, but are threatened by such propaganda as this, which is a subtle suggestion that a global central government (a technocracy) is acceptable. Actually, the experiments with global government have all failed or, as in the case of the latest attempt, the EU, are in the process of disintegrating (triggered by the Greek collapse) and lead inevitably to dictatorships because the people pushing global governance are not democratically minded. To understand why I say that, just read this article by UK politician Sonya Porter. They also lack technical and real-world knowledge needed to solve problems, all the while displaying exceptional persuasive skills — obviously a dismal set of circumstances for everyone whose lives they touch with their ineptitude.
The second prong of the campaign is aimed at decriminalizing criminals. Drug dealers have waged war on their own people in Mexico and Colombia and kill indiscriminately (but note: only stable, anti-terror leaders in the Middle East are condemned by Western "leaders" for doing this). The cartels have grown so much in power that the government fears them. In Mexico, they have infiltrated major sectors of the national police and armed forces. These are inhumanly cruel, savage thugs who must be caught and dealt with harshly. Yet "world leaders" want to set them free. Regarding decriminalization and its results, Holland is a prime example of the failure of this plan. Holland's experiment, initiated under the banner of legalization as a way to reduce drug use, has actually led to increased crime and drug use. Permissive drug policies in the US, beginning under Carter, also led to increased drug use, including among young people who should be studying. The result was a crackdown in the 80s.
The third prong is support for open borders. The subtle suggestion is that the real culprit in the cartel crime and gang violence that has swept the US Southwest and threatens major US cities everywhere, is not the notoriously porous border with Mexico but rather the fact that foolish Americans continue to criminalize drugs, which in fact are perfectly harmless for us and our children.
The linked Yahoo article tells only one side of the story and includes none of the results of the drug legalization experiments alluded to above. Gullible people reading the Yahoo article will reason that Obama's open border policies are not a factor in America's burgeoning crime rate, blaming instead our insistence on criminalizing drug sales. Yes, if only these benighted Americans could accept these drug shipments and the consequences of drug use on their children, then everything would be fine.
What the mainstream media, as well as the elitists in "education," the universities, professionals and, yes, the churches (not only are they not an exception, they are ringleaders in stealth propaganda) have done is not only criminal, it is an assault on independent human cognition (thought) itself.
The article linked above, omits any detail on the consequences of drug legalization, presenting instead the opinions of supposed leaders who are nowhere quoted as providing evidence of their views.
And this article is typical of today's editorials. Westerners everywhere are being trained not to think but rather to imitate a consensus of pseudo-scientific "thought" or rather propaganda. Thus, what many "educated" professionals in the schools, colleges, pulpits, media and so on have taught you to do over the last 50 years or so is not to think but to accept without question the opinions of so-called "scientists" and "experts" who themselves only regurgitate the opinions of their bosses and the rest of their community using thinly veiled pseudo-scientific language and psycho-babble.
But note that accepting the opinions of people wearing an aura of "science" (many of whom are not scientists at all but in fact, journalists, psychologists and the like "professionals" who are trained chiefly in the art of propaganda) isn't the only problem. The problem is the public, which still accepts this propaganda as the genuine article, without question. And they are very good at persuading the public. Or rather, I should say, they have trained the public to follow them to such an extent that the public no longer knows how to think independently of them.
And yet, like an old college pal I ran into recently, people quote these propagandists and claim that in so doing, they are using "science" to reach conclusions and make decisions. Ordinary people are duped into believing that they are intellectuals, superior beings at the top of the evolutionary chain, when in fact, they haven't used a scintilla of independent thinking. Thus, they substitute a consensus of the "educated" for science. My pal told me he uses science to refute Christianity and suggested I was unscientific. Yet when I asked him by what cognitive mechanism he had arrived at his conclusions, and why he thought my thinking was inferior, he was stymied.
If he could have articulated his cognitive method, it would no doubt have been something like this:
Academics said it, I believe it and that settles it.
And yet, for him I was the fanatic because I believe in God.
The "experts" tell us that if we disagree with Obama's policies, we are racists. If we don't accept the "climate change" theory, we are polluters and enemies of the earth.
And many believe this tripe because they don't know what independent scientific thinking (human cognition) is. They haven't a clue.
Well, for those who don't know, true scientific thinking, in a nutshell, is always based on the scientific method, which has been developed in some form or other since Aristotle and was perfected in the Middle Ages. Simply put, this method of thinking, consists of
1 — observation,
2 — deriving a hypothesis (guess) based on that observation (using inductive reasoning),
3 — testing the hypothesis by further observation (in the lab, this means experimentation) under controlled conditions.
4 — drawing conclusions from this testing (using deductive reasoning) to derive a working theory that can be verified independently by others.
Before this method was developed, the sophists would sit around and argue issues without ever consulting the evidence. They believed pure reason (with no supporting facts) was superior to facts. This supremely unscientific method is illustrated by the parable of wise men arguing about the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. The debate went on for years and the participants whose reasoning power was the most brilliant vaunted their skill and patted themselves on the back for their oratory excellence.
Until one day, an humble laborer brought them the news: he had actually counted the number of teeth in a horse's mouth.
That was the end of the erudite discussion.
In real life, you can apply this in a modified form, for example, by on-line research, personal observations, or reading results of testing or observations of unbiased reporters.
For example, to test the hypothesis that opposing Obama's policies makes people racist, you can find writings by blacks who oppose Obama's ideas and see what they say.
You can also choose from among your friends or famous people individuals you know not to be racist and look at what they say about Obama's ideas and policies.
Finally, you can easily find reading matter about how socialism has failed in the past everywhere it has been tried, including in black African countries like Zimbabwe, or how welfare and affirmative action, for example, have hurt blacks in inner cities.
You can look at unemployment statistics, crime rates, school dropout rates, etc, for black people before and after the institution of welfare.
All of these methods are scientific because they depend on your skills in analyzing raw data and not on a consensus of the "educated."
It is almost surrealistic that mankind is returning to those primitive sophist methods where brilliance of oratory is replacing actual scientific research in the most vital areas of our lives and where the most polished politicians with the greatest skills in mendacity rule over intelligent people.
As evidence of this sinister development, modern philosophers and propagandists tell us that we are in a post-modern world where traditional methods of scientific inquiry are obsolete. They further tell us that there is no such thing as objective truth.
But they fall into a trap of their own making, for if one can say with certainty that there is no such thing as objectivity, then the universities lose their raison d'être and may as well shut their doors. No statement made by anyone amounts to a hill of beans. Indeed, as universities are completely taken over by "progressives" who deny the existence of objective knowledge, it is getting harder and harder for them to find enough gullible students to pay the bills.
Without government largesse, many would no longer be standing.
I say let them close their doors until they restore the missing ingredient: independent human cognition.
Yahoo Propaganda:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110601/ts_yblog_thelookout/global-leaders-call-for-a-major-shift-to-decriminalize-drugs
Holland experiment
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/solom2.htm
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
