Global Warming Fearmonger Group 10:10 Proposes Murdering Skeptical Schoolchildren

Posted on February 23, 2014 by Tony Heller

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FkB4uiizVo]

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Global Warming Fearmonger Group 10:10 Proposes Murdering Skeptical Schoolchildren

  1. Morgan says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    Yeah. They said they were joking. But you can tell what people are really thinking by their jokes. Many warmists want to kill realists.

    Reply
  2. Brent says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    Why is this being posted now? It’s from 2010

    Reply
    • Dave N says:
      February 24, 2014 at 1:03 am

      Because the New York Times is stuck in the year 2010?

      Reply
      • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:
        February 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm

        No Dave, The New York Times, Americas newspaper of record is stuck in the 1930s and as such they still refuse to relinquish Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize and denounce him for passing on to the American people, Papa Joe Stalin’s lies about Russia’s manmade famine in The Ukraine. A famine by the way that killed 2 to 4 million more people in only half the time that Hitler was able to accomplish in Europe.

        Reply
      • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:
        February 24, 2014 at 4:36 pm

        I meant to say 2 to 4 million Jewish people.

        Reply
  3. Shazaam says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    Well, climate realists just ask so many difficult questions.

    So the folks who want to enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling they get from “saving the planet” certainly would certainly be tempted to take the shortest path to get what they want.

    Documenting their desires like this is illuminating to say the least.

    You will believe the results of the climatologists’ manipulated data and computer generated long term model results!! No pressure….. Really……

    Reply
  4. Gail Combs says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:22 pm

    Now the New York Times suggests ‘den!ers’ should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires

    This is the third time around for suggestions that Den!ers be killed.
    Beyond bizarre: University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences

    The fourth if you include the call to have skeptics tried for Crimes Against Humanity.

    As one commenter at WUWT said “…this literally has shades of the horrific satiric cartoons that ran in many German papers daily from 1933 to 1945.”

    It is called desensitizing. You bring up the idea again and again and the reaction to it becomes less and less until the idea is no longer seen as horrific. It is used in horse training all the time.

    Desensitizing to Spooky Objects … The dreaded Plastic Bag.
    (wwwDOT)youtube.com/watch?v=FVNbjYCWF2M

    Reply
    • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:
      February 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm

      See my post on famine deaths in the Ukraine and how the NYT covered these deaths up for their hero, Joseph Stalin

      Reply
  5. Andy DC says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    We all deserve to die because we don’t believe that anything is happening, even when it is obvious that nothing is happening.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 23, 2014 at 10:59 pm

      We deserve to die because we proved we are independent thinkers and not ‘Team Players’

      Corporations and Governments do not like independent thinkers and ‘Socialists’ hate them.

      Reply
  6. Password protected says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Interesting social phenomena,
    I’m going to shovel the late season global warming off the driveway now.

    Reply
  7. Jimbo says:
    February 23, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    Since FBI undercover agent Larry Grothwall reported in 1969 that Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground mob planned on killing TWENTY MILLION Americans that couldn’t be “reeducated”, this comes as no surprise…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBtANp4IKVk
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/eliminating_25_million_america.html

    Reply
  8. Andy Oz says:
    February 23, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    “The business of skepticism is to be dangerous. Skepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year-old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?”
    — Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
    http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/archives/skepticism.htm

    CAGW is the new religion.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 23, 2014 at 10:56 pm

      That is why I mentioned John Dewey, Father of Progressive Education.

      …The progressives were a new breed of educator that came on the scene around the turn of the century. These rejected the religion of the Bible and placed their new faith in science, evolution and psychology. Indeed, men like G. Stanley Hall, James McKeen Cattell, Charles Judd, James Earl Russell traveled to Germany to study the new psychology under Prof. Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig. It was these men who later imposed the new psychology on American education and transformed it permanently from its academic function to one dedicated to behavioral change.

      John Dewey got his education in the new psychology under G. Stanley Hall at John Hopkins University….

      In 1894, Dewey was appointed head of the department of philosophy, psychology and education at the University of Chicago which had been established two years earlier by a gift from John D. Rockefeller. In 1896, Dewey created his famous experimental Laboratory School where he could test the effects of the new psychology on real live children….

      the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

      In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:

      When knowledge is regarded as originating and developing within an individual, the ties which bind the mental life of one to that of his fellows are ignored and denied.

      When the social quaility of individualized mental operations is denied, it becomes a problem to find connections which will unite an individual with his fellows…

      … And so, high literacy had to go. Dewey wrote in 1896, after the Laboratory School had been in operation for nine months:

      It is one of the great mistakes of education to make reading and writing constitute the bulk of the school work the first two years. The true way is to teach them incidentally as the outgrowth of the social activites at this time. Thus language is not primarily the expression of thought, but the means of social communication … And so, high literacy had to go. Dewey wrote in 1896, after the Laboratory School had been in operation for nine months:

      It is one of the great mistakes of education to make reading and writing constitute the bulk of the school work the first two years. The true way is to teach them incidentally as the outgrowth of the social activites at this time. Thus language is not primarily the expression of thought, but the means of social communication …

      http://www.ordination.org/dumbing_down.htm

      Reply
    • cb says:
      February 24, 2014 at 2:33 am

      “CAGW is the new religion.”

      No. It is simply an incarnation of socialism, buy atheist-humanist ideologues. Something just a tad different.

      Reply
      • Andy Oz says:
        February 24, 2014 at 7:38 am

        I can accept that view, but I prefer my shorthand description.
        Alarmist’s “deities” are Hansen et al, and they cannot question the one big commandment – thou shalt believe in CO2.

        Reply
      • Jeff says:
        February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am

        I’ve been saying this for a while. It’s not really a cult or religion, but it’s definitely a worldview/ideology. Let’s call it what it is without making it into a cartoon.

        What it isn’t though is science.

        Reply
        • Jeff says:
          February 24, 2014 at 11:50 am

          It’s basically where all the socialists went after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed the folly of socialism.

      • Mollie Norris says:
        June 4, 2014 at 12:40 am

        A continuation of the incarnation of Adolph Hitler, many of whose followers and financers (Rockefellers, Rothschilds, CIA head Dulles, Prescott Bush’s money-laundering), were protected by the US Justice Department, CIA and the Vatican, provided false identities and positions in US intelligence following WWII (Wellington House/Tavistock propaganda, Rockefeller, Rothschild financing.) Read former US Attorney John Loftus, ordered to maintain silence under threat of imprisonment 30 years ago after reading Top Secret files relating to these issues.

        David Rockefeller has stated his intent to suppress the truth regarding the CAGW scam. It’s time to stop calling this science and start using its real name – Evil.

        Reply
  9. Brian H says:
    February 24, 2014 at 12:57 am

    How appropriate that Dewey’s thinking was wet and soggy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *