Saturday, December 11, 2010

How the Right Shapes US 'Reality'

By Lawrence Davidson
December 11, 2010

There is a postmodern position that states "reality is a social construct." In other words, individuals and groups have their own realities and, according to the postmodernists, one reality is as true as another.

Read on.


henry said...

There is a reality and it is not your fantisy. and reality can become quite harsh and I know people at homeland security who are responsible for our lives and are totaly disregarded and are mearly reqiured to churn out pages and pages of directives that are totaly disregarded but required in volume. And I said it does not matter to me that you are going to fail I will take care of myself.

locojhon said...

Two points of disagreement:
You claim that the Bush administration 'didn't bother to provide Mullah Omar with the proof of OBL's complicity in 9-11.
More accurately, is that he couldn't provide that evidence, because it didn't exist--9-11 was a total fabrication and false flag operation, and almost everything learned about that event--sans our government's reports--proves it.
Secondly, the attacks on Afghanistan began less than a month after 9-11--and had obviously been planned and prepared for well before that date.
The propaganda that claims otherwise is unfounded--the plans were obviously set well in advance.

henry said...

It all depends on how I feel when I get up in the morning. If the first thing I do is kill someone I might just go on doing that for the next two days and never get breakfast.
If you come up on me in the morning you had better be there to share breakfast.

strefanash said...

Yes, the Right shape American's perceptions of reality. THey are mnasters of propaganda.

But rejection of the idea that Global warming is real, human caused, or dangerous, is not one of the Right's propaganda tricks.

It is solid and simple truth for which scientific evidence is abundant. There is no consensus, and in fact more and more scientists are coming out against the fad which is AGW.

The hockey stick is bogus: there was a medieval warm period and the warming which started to lift the world out of the little ice age (1350-1800) was much faster than that claimed by the IPCC for now. This warming was not caused by human indistry, not in 1700 when there was still none to speak of.

space prevents me from going on in detail, but AGW is pseudoscience and in fact is a cult religion.

I am no rightist, i am in fact in implacable enemy of the Right. I holod my opinions regarding AGW due to such things as evidence, all the things the IPCC repress. Or are you here at consortium set of forgetting what the climategatescandal proved?

Lewis said...


Baudrillard's 'America' for the 'hyper-reality' of US culture

Big Em said...

To any of you readers who might take consider taking Mr 'strefanash' (see above) seriously, first read some of the OVERWHELMING (as in 97-98% consensus) agreement among SERIOUS climate scientists in links such as these: or

Besides the scientific community, note the corporate and military believers in this listing:
As even Republican Arnold Schwarznegger remarked: “Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It's as simple as that.” (

You can also read debunkings of the ‘skeptics’ / deniers in MANY places, such as
or to name just a couple. They quickly and factually correct the common denier-myths that strefanash and others like to try to sell.

The scientists who first began publishing doubts on climate change in the popular press were the very same scientists who also published similar reports to cast doubt on the link between cancer and tobacco, CFC's and the ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen emissions to acid rain. They have, in internal communications, admitted their reports are only intended to give the impression a debate exists to delay action. They have never been "correct" in their findings because that is not their intention. (see )

henry said...