The Allegorical Experiment: Exposing the Political Obscene by Using the Political Absurd
Recently I published an article titled, “Goodbye Climate Change—Hello ‘Darkness Creep.’ “ The few people who did manage to read between the lines understood that this article was a parody, but most took it seriously and vented their disgust and anger towards me—as well they should—if I were really supporting such an agenda. The reason intelligent people misunderstood the article proved my point. We have been so conditioned by recent events that defy nature and common sense—all in the name of political correctness and governmental control—that reading an article titled, “Goodbye Climate Change—Hello ‘Darkness Creep’ ” is unfortunately something that would be of no surprise to any thinking person.
In the article I wanted to show how disreputable governments, in collaboration with unscrupulous people of science, can take actual facts that are provable and twist them into junk science. Titles that are catchy are a popular means by which governmental bureaucrats seek to mold public opinion, and in order for a con to work, there must be an element of truth. What I did was simply make use of a scientific phenomenon known as the summer solstice which initiates the reversal of the length of time in which daylight bathes our northern hemisphere.
Because of the earth’s tilt, we have seasons and with the seasons beginning with the summer solstice, the days grow shorter. By using ominous adjectives and leaving out some clarifying details, I made suggestions that would lead an intelligent person’s mind to fill in the blanks, just like the junk science global warming does.
Political agendas work best when propagandists include undeniable facts to back up their straw man arguments. As most of you know, a “straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person’s argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one’s more substantial counterargument.”
The beginning of my article was designed to make a point by being vague and absurd, yet with the use of undeniable facts. The opening quote was something frequently used by deceitful politicians and their cohorts in the press: “We know that 97% of scientists agree that we are undergoing a climate change…” Of course, the opposite claim can be made too; it is just a matter of whose “facts” the deliverer wants to use to promote their agenda.
Then I described the effect of the summer solstice when we lose a minute of sunlight each day which I described as “darkness creep.” Anyone would agree that only losing a minute of day light per day is a very slow process.
Next I offered other factual evidence—but evidence totally unrelated from the subject and having nothing to do with the “darkness creep.” I presented it just like the government does—knowing the mind’s tendency to fill in the blanks—using whatever information that is readily available.
By using the power of suggestion, the government and their cronies can make the case for their agenda de jour without actually lying and giving them the cover of being able to defend their “facts,” even though those “facts” are not related to their agenda.
Confusing? It’s supposed to be!
Here is how the government fools some of us:
In my article I presented facts that have nothing to do with the effects of the summer solstice, knowing those facts would be mentally absorbed by almost everyone based on the power of suggestion observing how the brain operates. It appears that a person’s mind will use the facts available to them in an effort to make sense of what data they have in an attempt to arrive at a meaningful understanding of the disjointed subject, which then allows the political manipulators to force the unwary citizen toward the desired conclusion—in my case resulting in all types of opinions!
Using the global warming scenario and their method of injecting facts, I reasoned that if the Obama administration wanted to take the next step towards destroying the coal industry, they could create an emotional straw man by arguing, “We know that 97% of scientists agree that we are undergoing a climate change.” As you can see from my article, I used the same “formula” that Al Gore and others use for global warming to attack coal. My facts are correct and the means to avoid using coal are workable alternatives, but like global warming, it is really a scam.
To further bolster public opinion, I used cyclical reasoning and incorporated words that President Obama recently made to demean his critics and promote his ecological agenda, and to give more credibility by also including those allies of socialist agendas—the press.
The use of visuals by agenda promoters can be a potent subliminal means of influencing the desired conclusion or outcome.
Many of us are familiar with the truism, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” In the promotion of the flawed concept of global warming that is now referred to as “climate change,” in Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” it shows a sympathetic scene—a supposedly hapless stranded polar bear floating on a piece of ice not much bigger than he is. Showing this picture/video, while bemoaning the fact that the Arctic ice caps are shrinking, and showing other pictures of giant cliffs breaking and falling off into the ocean, leaves one with the impression—without having to say it—that the poor polar bear is facing his demise.
Of course, the facts are correct as far as it goes: the polar bear is indeed “confined” to a very small slab of ice. However, the global warming proponents leave out the fact that the polar bear is a proficient swimmer and mighty hunter on both land and sea. In reality, the polar bear probably swam out to the floating ice and later swam back to land, but we are not shown that.
Likewise, the picture that accompanied my article was never mentioned in the article—on purpose. The facts are that on our planet somewhere, it is midnight while on the other side of the planet it is noon, and somewhere on the planet, at any one time in various places, clouds are floating in the sky, allowing that there must be several places on the night side of our planet where a person could look up into the night’s sky and see the moon shinning above or through the clouds. This phenomenon has been going on for thousands of years.
However, when talking about coal, one knows that coal can produce soot. Without even saying anything about my article’s accompanying photograph of the moon and the clouds, the subconscious mind fills in the blanks using information in the article. In the mind’s eye, in relation to the article, the clouds could conceivably become the impending ravages of air pollution and not clouds.
I made the propaganda plea, “Okay America, suck it up for the good of planet. We realize that some radicals will disagree with our assessment of the scientifically proven ‘Darkness Creep,’ but they are just part of the ‘Flat Earth Society’ and other fringe groups. Just stay focused, and be sure to only watch or listen to CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS. Only fools and idiots listen to or watch the bigoted and mean-spirited commie-phobic media. Stop ‘Darkness Creep’ before it’s too late!”
I was poking fun at Barack Obama when he said, “We have no time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society,” referring to people who don’t think climate change is real.
What a sad commentary on the state of affairs of our country. Remember the lesson learned here is, when reading articles that present facts, the facts may indeed be true, but are they applicable?
