Dreams from Their Father

Compares flaws in Marx' science and sources with those of the climate change environmentalists

Dreams from Their Father

Author
By Mary A. Nicholas


Karl Marx has had more impact on the minds of men and women in modern times than almost any other philosopher. One of his great claims about his philosophy was that it was “scientific.” Not “a knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws,” but an ideology that would transform the nature of man. It was a philosophy whose lineage includes terrorism, dictatorships and the ideology of the anti-human environmentalists.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Capital, penned in 1867, includes the chapter “Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation,” where Marx claimed there would be a progressive diminution in the number of capitalist magnates and a “corresponding increase of poverty, oppression, enslavement, degeneration and exploitation.” This prophecy of doom was pure prediction, not science. Another chapter, “The Working Day,” was supposedly “a factual analysis of the impact of capitalism on the lives of the British worker.” And he concluded that capitalism by its nature, involves the exploitation of workers. But he based his conclusions on a single source—The Condition of the Working Class in England, written by his friend (and supporter) Engels—-twenty years before- - in 1845. Neither Marx nor Engels had any first-hand exposure to English working conditions, mining or rural labor.

Is there objective evidence for distortion of facts on the part of Engels and Marx? In 1958, two meticulous English scholars examined all of Engels’ books and sources. The effect of their study was devastating. Engels’ book was not based on primary sources but “on a few secondary sources of dubious value, especially Peter Gaskell’s The Manufacturing Population of England (1833) “a work of romantic mythology which attempted to show that the eighteenth century was a golden age for English yeomen and craftsmen.” (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, 65)

Though some historians question whether these misrepresentations were deliberate deceptions or self-deception, his deceit is clearly intended as seen in the following: citing evidence of bad factory conditions from the Factories Enquiry Commission of 1833, he deliberately neglected to mention Lord Althorp’s Factory Act of that same year which passed and served as a basis to eliminate harmful factory conditions.

The same deception was employed by failing to mention Physical and Moral Conditions of the Working Classes Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester  of 1832. He quotes the source but fails to mention they had produced fundamental reforms in local sanitation.

Johnson concluded that he “constantly and knowingly suppresses facts that contradict his argument or explain away a particular ‘iniquity’ he is seeking to expose. (Intellectuals) The Henderson and Challoner edition of Engels book lists errors of fact and transcription on a total of 23 pages. Some of Engels’ misrepresentations were exposed as early as 1848, so Marx was aware of them—-yet collaborated in the distortions and deception.

Nevertheless, Marx spewed his own distortions. In a speech to rally the International Working Men’s Association he deliberately distorted Gladstone’s budget speech of 1863 where, mentioning the increase in British national wealth, he said: “I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if it were my belief that it was confined to the class who are in easy circumstances. But the average condition of the British labourer, we have the happiness to know, has improved during the last twenty years in a degree which we know to be extraordinary….” How did Marx report Gladstone’s speech? “This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely confined to classes of property.” A harmless oversight? Hardly. Marx quoted as his source the Star, a British newspaper. But the Star had quoted Gladstone correctly.

The red mythologists, now dressed in green, rely on the same type of Marxist “science.” Slithering into towns, cities and academia, just like Marx, they shout Doomsday predictions: this time, not from capitalism,(although some clearly blame capitalism), but from “global warming. Here is just one siren song: “It is not just the overall amount of climate change that will be so devastating to ecosystems, but just as importantly, the rate at which that change occurs. Alongside such drastic reductions in biodiversity, human misery will multiply. Mass migration, droughts, floods, wars, and famine will be endemic rather than periodic features of a greatly constrained human society.” (Chris Williams, Ecology and Socialism, 173) The future will reveal the merits of their arguments….2010..2015…2030…2050. This is nothing but a technique to avoid discussion by removing an argument from the present. It is a matter of record that environmental “scientists” will not debate.

Americans especially were made to believe that they would literally melt to death, as polar bears (now estimated to have increased to 20- 25,000 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife) and glaciers became extinct. Among other propaganda tools, Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” blamed global warming on man. Cause and effect. Man’s carbon footprint caused anthropogenic global warming. And because most people are intimidated by science, who were they to argue. But several critical things happened: a) scientists had the sophisticated tools to measure the temperature precisely and compare these measurements with the computer models that had been used by the IPCC; b) people experienced the coldest winter in the U.S. in 102 years as seen below:http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-population-higher-20th-century-something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075


Source: Steven Goddard based on temperatures obtained from all 1,221 stations of the Historical Climate Network

c) more and more scientists rebelled and refused to participate in the hoax, and d) the computer models the IPCC used to predict “global warming” failed, i.e.,  the model itself failed. Not only did it fail but the RSS system, the Remote Sensing Systems showed no global warming for 17 years 5 months as seen in this graph:



Source: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, SIPPC Paper, “IPPC Admits Defeat”

Even the UK Guardian admitted: “...the global warming deniers have won. The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do…The climate change deniers have won.”

One of the greatest crimes of the green Bolsheviks at the EPA against science and the human race was its effluent labeling carbon dioxide a pollutant in Massachusetts v EPA. Something that all life on earth depends on.  Think about it. A plant food, without which arugula and spinach cannot grow, is now a pollutant . But Arendt reminded us that totalitarian propaganda is marked by “extreme contempt for facts as such.”

Most people are familiar with the egregious manipulation of scientific data that took place under the auspices of Michael Mann of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. To prove global warming, he used as data for recent centuries sea sediment, ice core samples, oxygen isotopes (all valid) but included temperatures from major cities known for artificial upward swings due to the heat-trapping influence of concrete, asphalt and steel. A source of dubious value? Not only did he include this data, he excluded highly reliable temperature records recorded by satellite instrumentation and records due to El Nino effects. (Eco-Tyranny, Sussman 77-78). If a scientist wanted to skew results this is what he would do. The CRU also claimed that the original warming data was “lost.” The record he produced became known as “Mann’s hockey stick.” A significant number of scientists objected to this manipulation of science but it remains a CRU-sponsored icon and the United Nations uses the graph as a basis for global policy. Object and you would be called a “denier.” Or denied funding. Denied a position in academia. Or if they really get their way, throw you in jail. Or, perhaps there will be liquidations.https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704380504575530882705081398http:/online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704380504575530882705081398

If the environmental fascists get their way they will increase their control over the production of cars, in spite of the risks with cafe standards,http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296998/cafe-standards-kill-deroy-murdock
what you can do with your private property; import wolves for ecological balance,http://cryingwolfmovie.com/
in spite of the number of cattle, horses and sheep killed;http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/history.html succeed in brainwashing another generation (common core); enact forced population control;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/?page=2  control the foods you can eat. and establish thousands of environmental committees and departments over the world, leading to a totalitarian world government.http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Climate_Change_Dietary_Guidelines_031014.html
Their dreams are the same dreams as their father, Marx. A conspiracy theory? On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, at the 16th Conference of the Parties, Mrs. Figueres, its president, said of the Cancun agreement, that it “is a litmus test of global-governance capacity.” (Ms. Figueres’ resume includes an advanced degree from the London School of Economics,http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/never_call_socialism_by_its_right_name.html and states she is “trained and authorized by Al Gore to deliver his presentation, An Inconvenient Truth.”)
http://figueresonline.com/CFO_English_Long.pdf
The latest prophecy of climate doom is from the mildewed propaganda of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note the propaganda techniques employed:http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/03/224161.htm

a) create fear;
b) state that they consulted 12,000 peer reviewed studies to give it legitimacy. Lenin used this when he referred to the Bolsheviks as the “majority” in contrast to the Mensheviks, the minority; and

c) demonization—Kerry called deniers of global warming “guilty of malpractice.”
In 2007 Vaclav Klaus expressed it clearly: “Freedom, Not Climate, Is at Risk.”