EDITORIAL
Stop Lying, and Maybe People Will Support Your Cause
By Joe Jarvis - November 27, 2017

Nothing makes me dig in my heels like dishonesty. I don’t care how good a cause is. If someone is lying to get support, they don’t deserve it. They end up doing more damage to their cause with their dishonest tactics.

Here’s the thing, I love the environment. Spending an afternoon kayaking or a weekend hiking are some of my favorite activities. I don’t want to breathe in smog, and I want to be able to swim in the rivers. I love animals too. I don’t want their environment to be destroyed, and I don’t want them to choke on trash.

It seems like I’d be a prime candidate to support environmental causes. And I will never support the climate change agenda of the United Nations, the United States, or any other government. They are liars. And because of their dishonesty, they have done more to damage than help their cause.

The environmentalists surely have varied goals. Many truly care about the environment and buy the propaganda about how bad humans are for the Earth. Others probably suspect that humans haven’t done as much damage as the media makes out. But they still think that using scare tactics–lying–will hasten the change to cleaner lifestyles.

And then there are the people who exploit both of these groups for power. They could not care less about the environment. They use these climate change activists to gain power. There is a reason electricity is called power. The ultra-rich and elite rulers have always been able to live a top-notch life on the spoils of the poor. But fossil fuels started to equalize society.

Doomsday environmentalists’ fictional armageddon predictions stand in stark contrast to the real world truth that fossil fuels have lifted the vast majority of the world out of crushing poverty. This is another dishonest tactic. They refuse to admit or discuss the great advantages “pollutants” have given to humanity. The elite see their fellow humans as a disease. Fossil fuels “bred” that “disease” by bringing freedom and prosperity to the masses.

The truth of the UN and government’s plan for climate action is that benefit to the environment means detriment for the people.

But two things could easily get someone like me to support clean environment initiatives. One, if they were honest about the real impact and cause. Two, if the solutions were voluntarily, and did not force people to do some things or not do other things.

Cliche, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Being militant and dishonest only hardens resolve against the cause. And finding solutions to clean up the environment without hurting people and casting the world back into poverty and slavery is quite possible.

But the real solutions have been obscured by certain maniacal environmentalists. They should offer better products based on clean energy. Instead, they try to force people to go without fossil fuel products. They make heat, electricity, and travel prohibitively expensive with regulations and taxes, and say that is a solution. They ignore the human element.

And what exactly are people to think about climate change? The dates of the direst predictions have come and gone. At this point, I’m about as likely to believe a street preacher’s doomsday predictions as Al Gore’s estimates on sea levels. There have been a number of UN “final moments” to do something about climate change.

To be fair, some of these predictions claimed merely these dates were cut-offs before the damage was irreversible. So I guess there’s no point in abandoning fossil fuels now if the damage is done! Time to break out the champagne and drink to the apocalypse.

And yet, there is certainly plenty of good to be done for the environment. I’m sure there is too much pollution. I’m sure many people and animals would benefit from a cleaner environment. And I’m immediately drawn away from any environmental groups or causes because of how the movement has been tainted by liars and exploiters.

And it is the same with drugs. It has been just about 80 years since the release of propaganda film Reefer Madness. In it, teens become addicted to marijuana and someone ends up being murdered. But the truth of the drug war is far more tragic. Marijuana is responsible for 0 direct deaths ever, and probably fewer indirect deaths than alcohol. But the drug war has claimed the lives of countless police, drug dealers, low-level users, and innocent bystanders caught up in the paranoia.

And what happens when people realize that marijuana isn’t so bad? They start wondering what other drugs they have been lied to about. Maybe heroin isn’t so bad after all? But the problem is: it is! How do you raise awareness about a real danger when you have been lying about a fake danger for so many years?

Likewise, there is an entire segment of the population primed to ignore any concern about the environment.

See where dishonesty has gotten us? Further from any real solutions to real problems. If you have a cause you truly care about, be honest about it.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL
  • Robert Brooks

    You had me until you got to the irrelevant (and faulty) commentary on marijuana. Stick to one topic at a time, please! I was going to forward this article, but now I can’t. Check your facts on the effects of marijuana. It is not anywhere near benign.

    • PACOBRUSSELS
      • Jacobus deRottmann

        Hit pieces claiming calamitous evil for cannabis consistently come from people whose power and paychecks depend on the continuation of the drug war as it is.
        And that includes those who are financially invested in private prisons – such as our current Attorney General.

      • Robert Brooks

        I did not comment on the so-called “war on drugs”. I said exactly two things: 1) please stick with one topic at a time and 2) marijuana is not benign. I am 71 years old. I lived through the 60’s. I know whereof I speak.

        • Bombaste Von Hohenheim

          Do you know who made grass illegal and why? Dupont went to Hoover and did it when his company discovered a mean to make paper out of wood but it was more expensive than grass so the war on drugs started … and yes look at my picture I lived the 60’s and loved it…. and the 70’s too

        • Col. E. H. R. Green

          Please proffer all of the evidence that conclusively and irrefutably prove that marijuana is not benign”.

          THAT is what you must do in order for your argument against marijuana to be taken seriously, instead of committing the fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Bald Assertion (e.g. “I am 71 years old. I lived through the 60’s. I know whereof I speak.”).

          You must also irrefutably prove that people’s lives and bodies and wealth are government property, therefore, those who operate government have a legitimate right to force people, ultimately at gunpoint and the threat of murder, to refrain from putting certain substances in their bodies.

          • Robert Brooks

            If you are truly interested and willing to look at the data, you can do your own research. I’ve done enough of my own to have stopped my own use of this drug some 47 years ago. There are numerous places where you can get the information, but a very quick websearch on my part produced one which might be of interest: http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2014/04/16/marijuana-brain-effects-study
            I am not appealing to anything other than my own experience, not authority. Yes, it may be a bald assertion on my part, but again, it would be easy for you to study this yourself and come to your own conclusion. Regarding your last paragraph, since I said nothing about the rightness or the wrongness of the law, I don’t have to prove anything to you about that. Again I have only asserted that marijuana is not benign. From what I can tell, you and the other responders are mostly concerned about government involvement in other people’s lives. I share that concern.

        • Col. E. H. R. Green

          Please proffer all of the evidence that conclusively and irrefutably proves that “marijuana is not benign”.

          THAT is what you must do in order for your argument against marijuana to be taken seriously, instead of committing the fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Bald Assertion (e.g. “I am 71 years old. I lived through the 60’s. I know whereof I speak.”).

          You must also irrefutably prove that people’s lives and bodies and wealth are government property, therefore, those who operate government have a legitimate right to force people, ultimately at gunpoint and the threat of murder, to refrain from putting certain substances in their bodies.

        • Robert Brooks said: “I am 71 years old. I lived through the 60’s. I know whereof I speak.”

          There are many people on Disqus who are older than you and who also “know whereof [they] speak” and disagree with you. Your appeal to authority by virtue of (your old) age is pretty transparent and futile.

    • Thanks for the input. The point was more about the lies told about marijuana which lead to skepticism of warnings on more dangerous drugs. But we will take your comment into consideration for future articles.

      • Robert Brooks

        Thank you.

  • PACOBRUSSELS
  • Alan777

    About 10 years ago, as a scientist I wanted to know the truth about man-made CO2 global warming. I did several years of research and in addition reviewed in detail a paper by scientists with a very sophisticated green house model that showed that current high CO2 levels had about a 0.3% effect or contribution. Turns out they couldn’t get the paper published in the respected journals because of the biased government subsidized research referees/environmentalists. I like to tell people that today’s global warming is supported by political scientists, not scientists.

  • Nice identifications! GREAT article!

  • Kernel01

    I like the approach here. Seems like he’s identifying the mature stage of a cause, that galvanizes into a commitment, that evolves into a movement, which then matures into an enterprise wherein it continues to devour donations in continuance of “the cause”; some examples being NAACP, BLM, NRA, AARP, PETA, SPLC, TV Evangelists, and politicians for that matter. When the behemoth of the enterprise gets consumed with running the enterprise, individual donors get lost in the anomy.

  • Clearpoint

    Is there disinformation out there; no doubt about it. Are there power brokers staking out ground on both sides of the argument; you bet. Are the tactics used to win the argument subtle and deceptive; incredibly so. Like the author’s subtle assertion that he would be on the environmentalist side of the argument only if the environmentalist side of the argument wasn’t so dishonest — begs the question: What about the dishonesty on the business side of the argument???

    Or the author’s one-sided straw man argument that the elite are behind the environmentalist argument because they want to eliminate the “disease”, i.e. of the non-elite. As plausible as this may sound on first brush, the abundance of energy made everyone better off. And like all innovations, the elite were not in control of it at the start; and therefore could not have stopped the creative destruction of the energy innovations. Further, now that the elites have consolidated their control of energy, it’s much more plausible that they are now using it to power the machines that are on their way to making no longer needed labor obsolete.

    I’ll give the author credit for getting one thing right…there is an incredible amount of dishonesty over this.

    • Bombaste Von Hohenheim

      In the 1890’s farmers in Texas were killed so their properties could be repossessed and wannabe oil tycoons were created (from the start) read Paul Getty’s story

      • Clearpoint

        Let me clarify. The innovation wasn’t created or driven by the elites. They would have stopped it if they could have out of the fear that creative destruction would have compromised their position of power. Did some opportunists (existing elites + aggressive newcomers) jump on the “opportunity” of the innovation once they smelled $$$; yes they did. Today’s energy elites likewise fear the creative destruction that an alternative form of energy could have on their position of power.

        The innovation came first; then came the harvesting of the innovation for $$$.

  • Bombaste Von Hohenheim

    Actually it’s weird that no MSM mention the fact that 16 greatest cargo ship in the world pollute more than all the cars in the world…….. but …….. someone had to bring the crap most folks bought on black Friday

  • Lying Sweetly

    Don’t know how I missed this post yesterday on Zero Hedge. Lying isn’t what most people think it is. But it is important. More than almost anyone realizes.

    http://lyingsweetly.blogspot.com/2017/05/lying-sweetly-i-am-going-to-tell-you_3.html

  • Wade House

    Half truths are just as bad as lies. You completely left out Alcohol Fuels, which can do everything fossil fuels do except poison everything, and it’s much cheaper. It can be produced with profit for under $1 dollar per gallon, and anyone can make it…easy peasy! And No Oil Wars to boot!
    The war on fuel alcohol was always hidden inside the whiskey wars. It was the original auto fuel. The Model T and the first Internal Combustion Engines were made to run off it. And Diesel Engines were originally designed to run off Biofuel/Vegetable Oil.
    Notice a trend yet?

    • Wade House

      It’s also curious that you mention ‘reefer’ but don’t mention that Industrial hemp is the very best by far, plant to make Ethanol/Alcohol///hemponol from. It’s better for Fuel, Clothes, paper, plastic, paints…you name it.
      And you are right. Nobody has died from marijuana in 5000 years according to the U.S. CDC and the Huff Post.
      Why is it a Schedule 1 Drug again…like heroin?

  • Ephraiyim

    Heroin is not “Bad”. It does have some (very) limited medical uses.
    The chemical is neutral. Dangerous, yes, when dosage and purity are an issue.
    Legalization of all substances, including the ones considered dangerous would put the street dealers out of the competition. Only in a true free market economy where consumers drive competition would we eventually see substances such as heroin, LSD and others properly dealt with.
    Sure some would abuse just as alcohol is abused but consumers would also cause treatment resources to self regulate in order to remain competitive.

loading