Vote for the greens, get fascists.

The eco-fascists expose themselves.  In the Grauniad there is this article, which details, but does not condemn,  James Lovelock’s statement that:

I have a feeling, that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

Worse, the programme of one of the worst eco-fascists, Pentti Linkola:

His bold political programme includes ending the freedom to procreate, abolishing fossil fuels, revoking all international trade agreements, banning air traffic, demolishing the suburbs, and reforesting parking lots. As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags.

The Grauniad correspondent urges a slightly less Stalinist approach:

It is a revolution which is already budding and is marked by three synergetic campaigns: the criminalisation of advertising, the revocation of corporate power and the downshifting of the global economy.

and goes on to note approvingly:

…others are fighting to revive the possibility of death penalties for corporations.

Article here.

Meanwhile, in Western Australia, here is the story of  a family driven into destitution by the eco-fascists of the West Australia Environmental Defenders Office, including the suicide of an employee at a cattle feedlot:

This is a family with four young children, who ran a profitable business; they filled in every form and ticked every box. They have broken no laws, and there are no outstanding environmental notices, but yet, they came to Western Australia with their life savings and they are losing everything.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/11/death-of-a-feedlot-operator/

And its denouement:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/urgent-a-call-to-action-for-the-wuwt-community/

Eco-fascism in action.

18 thoughts on “Vote for the greens, get fascists.”

  2. You posted a link to an article that is critical of the ‘Australian way’ and got away with it. I’m impressed.

  3. We have the wretched ‘climate-change-greenies’ here too – and dislike them every bit as much as anyone else in the world…

  4. Bearsy :

    You may be impressed Sipu, but you didn’t comprehend the article. If you could clear the red haze that descends on you every time Australia is mentioned, you might actually learn something. But you won’t. Your inbuilt prejudices, based on fiction, will blind you every time. You are hidebound by them. Dommage. :cry:

    Cheer up, Bearsy, it was just a piss-take. Its just part of my unique ‘Rhodie-Brit-Saffa’ sense of humour.

  5. What really worries me is that when the climate change scam is proved to be just that, if a real threat to humanity is detected by real scientists, it will be ignored. You know the old fable about the boy who cried wolf!

  7. Anthropological Global Warming is, to my mind, a somewhat abstract hook on which agitators attempt to hang their moral hats. Let me explain. There will always be people who wish to believe in a cause about which they can protest. It could be political, ethical or economic, involving, human or animal or other rights. Most causes have very little to with the individual’s day to day life, though they will sometimes stem from personal experience. I have no evidence to back me up, but I would not be surprised to learn that the majority of such activists have little in the way of religious beliefs. In other words these causes take the place of religion or vice versa. Many people have to feel strongly about something. They want to be part of a moral crusade.

    It seems to me, and this is what is so ironic, that the less the evidence there is to support a cause, the more active protesters become. Take road safety, for example. There is clearly a diminishing return on the number of lives that can be saved by reducing speeds, and drivers’ blood alcohol levels. 50 years ago road deaths were excessively high and changes to the law clearly needed to be made. These days, following those changes, there is much less evidence to support the arguments of safety advocates, and yet they are more vocal and more extreme than ever. The same applies to smoking, gun control etc.

    I used the word abstract in reference to AGW, because there seems little tangible evidence to support a) its existence and b) the fact that mankind can even make the world cooler if it tried. I think this is why it is so appealing to activists. It becomes a sort of spiritual debate as a opposed to a rational one. Activists can claim the moral high ground by supporting it just as religious activists can claim the moral high ground by preaching the word of God. AGW can’t be proved either to exist or to be bad for the world. But like the existence of God, it cannot be disproved either. Well not yet, anyway. Believers of causes merely assume the facts. Often one finds the most vocal agitators are the most irrational and least stable people. Not all of them. There are plenty of cynics who are in it for the money and power the cause can bring. Al Gore is no different to some of the more egregious religious leaders.

    If Climate activists really did care about the environment, they would do much more to protest about the damage that humans do the physical environment. Desertification is a real problem in Africa and other parts of the world. Managing human resources correctly could have a significant impact on reducing it or at least halting it. Unfortunately that would mean interference in the politics of many Third World nations and that is currently seen by most to be immoral.

  10. Sipu, I find little to disagree with in your #9 either. The money wasted on the greenies’ causes could, as you say, be much better spent on addressing real problems. Access to energy for citizens of poor countries, for example. The answer to most ‘development’ problems is to give people access to cheap, abundant energy, stand back and watch them go. Forcing ‘sustainable’ development on porrer nations keeps them in poverty.

  11. I wonder how many of you have actually been in a feed lot with 15,000 cows?
    I have, in West Texas.
    And I am telling you from that aerial photograph that feed lot was not 4 k. away from that town.
    15,000 cows that near would have rendered that town unliveable!
    The stench from ten miles away is unbloodybelievable.
    Needless to say they are situated in the USA in the middle of absolutely nowhere!
    The only thing of equal stench is a mushroom substrate production unit and they are indoors with filters, feed lots cover literally square miles on some occasions.

    Sounds piss poor planning in the first place to me and a bad business decision to site it there where it was bound to cause dissent.

  12. Hi CO, I must admit that was my view, the piss poor planning I mean. I suppose if one thinks about it 15,000 mombies, as we call them, is a hell of a lot. To imagine that planning for the feed-lot would be a formality was somewhat optimistic and to invest on the basis that it would be given was just dumb. Actually, given the rapidly rising cost of grain, they are probably less broke than they would be had permission been given.

  13. Now there you have a point sipu.
    Personally I would like to see beef going back to grass fed for three years.
    It tastes better.
    it is far better for the land.
    It would be suitably expensive and perhaps help cut down the birth rate! (Less full of beans!)
    All food should be more expensive to cut down humanity.
    Don’t breed what you can’t feed!!!
    Feed lots offend me on an aesthetic basis.

  16. The only green looney to get elected here, has decided to stick her silly little head above the sandbags.

    She believes MPs should job share. So at a time when everyone is pig sick of the number of trough snouters in the HOC, she proposes the number should double? Sit down and shut the frick up you undernourished nut cutlet chomping freak.

Add your Comment