Pravda on Global Warming - Another Example that the Left/Right Divide is More Complicated than Many Like to Admit

This one falls under the heading of 'articles I started drafts on when I was on hiatus and are therefore a little dated'. However, while dated, I still think Pravda's recent take on global warming is interesting:

"For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

 

What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists."

 

The author goes on to build an article around a skeleton of just about every talking point a global warming skeptic has at his disposal. Why do I find this so interesting? After all, one can find the points above, as well as the rest in the article, in just about any comment section of any article on global warming and any number of blogs and magazines. However, one doesn't often see such talking points in a magazine of the left which is, of course, what Pravda unashamedly is. At least, I should clarify, not in a magazine of the left in America.

 

Therefore, it serves as a strong reminder that right and left are relative terms. They mean different things in different contexts. They mean different things across international borders. An interesting reminder, yes, and maybe a valuable lesson for the political novice. However there is a even more important corollary embedded in this story than the idea that right and left mean different things in nations across oceans from each other.

 

The more valuable lesson that flows from this one is that right and left can mean different things even within national boundaries, particularly when shifted by the sands of time, or perhaps in a more jaded version, political expediency. In other words, party platforms shift over time, making the left's position of yesterday the right's position of today and vice versa. I hope my readers remember this little lesson the next time they are inclined to follow a party platform merely because it is the platform of that party, and not because it is a platform they believe in...