Population Spin
It’s getting harder and harder to find a news publication to believe in.
It was with some surprise that readers were witness to the highly regarded newspaper ‘Economist’ trumpeting the accession to power of Barak Obama insisting only he was the man with the tools to mend America’s broken economy. John McCain, we were told was tainted by association with a failed administration and lost for new ideas. The ‘Yes We Can’ man, notwithstanding a curriculum vitae bereft of any indication that he was anything other than a smooth-talking party hack from the most corrupt political machine in America, got a firm thumbs-up from the wise men at The Economist and the doubters were damned; Fox News anchors asking some intelligent questions about the candidates ability to govern in the national interest, were dismissed as ‘loudmouths’ undeserving of a serious audience.
On ‘Global Warming’ ‘The Economist’ rallied early to the Al Gore call and repeated his warning that if desperate measures were not quickly followed, a catastrophe was likely. When ‘e mails’ were revealed along with evidence of a large information-suppression conspiracy designed to perpetuate what was unproven and in some cases blatant falsehoods, their reaction was a diffident one and they continue to plug an alarmist line despite the discrediting of the principals who transfixed the world with terrifying theories of looming doom. This is them playing their part in the strategy of the ‘politically-correct’ –shock-troopers who contrive to control through fear. Recent news that ‘General’ Gore took time off from saving the world and a climate change conference to make some unwanted advances towards a pretty young masseuse has predictably been played down.
Recently they ran a cover-story taking a sanguine view of the rocketing growth in the world’s population. Those of us who look at the population decline in Western Europe with concern were informed we need not worry; we could rejoice in the fecundity of the Third World where rampant libidos would more than plug the deficit. We can, we are told celebrate a total population of roughly 10 billion by 2050 which will drive economic growth, albeit from a different hemisphere. This is because only about 10% of the total population will then reside in the ‘Developed’ north; the USA, Canada and Western Europe combined, and the bulk of the new-arrivals will appear elsewhere. The biggest jump in numbers is certain to be in Africa.
Their premise seems to be based on the incredible presumption that numbers equal economic growth so if there are only 40,000,000 Germans left we need not fear; the population of Tanzania will be over 40,000,000 by that time and all will be well. This is specious nonsense that flies in the face of a plethora of potent evidence to the contrary and another example of the politically-correct mindset playing havoc with reality. Surely the white race is unique in being clever enough to create the most just and prosperous societies the world has ever known, but dumb enough to think that other races can do the same.
But in the midst of all this confusion it all becomes a little more understandable because it is now known that ‘Economist’ staff were part of the informal but secret and powerful ‘JournoList’ which boasted members from virtually all the principle publications in the print and electronic media. Their mission, in the same spirit as the ‘global-warming’ frauds they were so supportive of, and in keeping with classical fascist dogma, was to suppress the inconvenient truth when deemed necessary and punt the lines that conformed with their political agenda. Thus it was Sarah Palin was given a thorough thrashing and discredited but Barak Obama’s long association with the Reverend Wright who is at best a militant zealot and possible a racist lunatic, was consigned to the small print and given as little coverage as possible. Hitler would have been proud of the spin-boys at ‘The Economist’.
- Posted on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010
- 1 comments
Stuart August 26th, 2010 at 12:02 am
According to your article, the economist is guilty of backing the wrong horse in obama and perpetuating the myth of global warming. Obama has made a meal of the “recovery” with his socialist policies, global warming is simply the biggest load of codswallop I’ve ever heard of- these issues I do not dispute.
Your critique of the Economist is flawed by the clarity accompanying hindsight and the motives pursued by this iconic publication.
“obama mania” gripped the planet, the spin doctors sucked us in and the narcissist has failed us- miserably, could you have foreseen this back then? I doubt it. Obama was the flavour of the month and readers wanted to take a bite- Mccain may as well have been George W. going for a 3rd term. The presidential debates were a PR masterstroke by the Democratic campaign- smooth talking charmer vs. incoherent war-vet, no contest. But lets look past the shiny suits and peroxide-smiles- obama’s policies seemed more likely to get things going again, of course it helps little to know that a fraction of what was promised has been implemented (maybe the root cause of a soon to commence slide back into recessionary territory)
You fail to account for the fact that the economist needs to propagate the global warming myth to keep readership levels high. Al Gore’s horribly unscientific, unsubstantiated “research” and charming southern drawl has made any pragmatic GW naysayer seem backward and out of touch with reality. This has very little to do with “their political agenda” and everything to do with profits. GW is big money, denounce it at your peril.