In what has been described as a “win-win” for both nations, Australia’s environmental icon Tim Flannery has been traded to Canada in exchange for national celebrity Dr. David Suzuki, nationalist Maude Barlow, cash and future considerations.
It was thought that the trade was motivated by the fact that Dr. Suzuki and Maude Barlow suffer from a rare medical condition called demographic lockjaw that apparently can only be relieved by foreign travel to Australia. Dr. Suzuki has never been able to say publicly that Canada is in overshoot, but while he is in Australia, a country in the same ecological boat, he has no problem finding his tongue and telling interviewers that the land is overpopulated.
Similarly, Maude Barlow had no difficulty telling an Australian radio audience on June 16/08 to stop growing its population, but has never been bold enough to tell a Canadian audience that we should do the same, even though we are growing 5.4% every 5 years, the fastest of G8 countries . We’ve paved 20% of our best farmland in a nation with just 7% of its land arable and considered marginal by European standards. Immigrant-driven population growth is a dagger that presses us at our throats more deeply every year and our leading Green voices remain silent.
More than a decade ago Tim Flannery said that Australia could sustain only 6-8 million people, but since then, he has been as quiet as a church mouse, while his country has been growing leaps and bounds. Perhaps his job comes with too many perks.
The General Managers for the two countries met and determined that both “players” and teams would benefit from a change in scenery. They obviously weren’t the right fit for each other. Suzuki and Barlow somehow find their courage Down Under. Maybe Flannery will recover his in the Frozen North and save us.
When Dr. Suzuki leaves we are going to give him a big tearful send off, and raise his jersey up to the rafters never ever to worn by another player again. You will recognize it. It will be the one with the maple leaf on it, with the word “ Suzuki” across the back, and the great big number “ZERO” on the front to commemorate his contribution to stopping Canada’s environmental degradation from population growth. Jersey size will be XXXXL to match his ego, pomposity and condescension. One wonders if Australia’s land surface will be large enough to accommodate his personality footprint.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
CBC JOURNALIST'S FAKE BROADCAST SPARKS CELEBRATION
In an attempt to duplicate the feat of Orson Wells some seven decades ago, CBC xenophiliac Mark Kelly conned millions of soft green listeners into believing that an invasion of illegal aliens was about to sweep into south eastern British Columbia.
Rendered in the style of a radio news story with bulletins of UFO landings in the West Kootenays, reports had Mexicans and Central Americans pouring down ramps of flying saucers threatening to force Canadians to adapt to their language, values and customs. Just what the left-wing audience wanted to hear. Kelly, the consummate pro, had the politically correct CBC groupies completely duped.
As a result, environmentalists like the local Sierra Club who had been working to reduce per capita consumption suddenly became gleeful at the notion of total consumption increasing to wipe out all those gains. With the environment getting worse, they would have something to do, a raison d’etre.
Labour leaders became excited at the prospect of poor illegal immigrants displacing the jobs of low income Canadian workers and depressing the wages of those who managed to retain their jobs in the wake of the invasion. They’ll just grow the union by organizing those illegal immigrants, right? That’s the motive, more dues, isn’t it?
Clergymen were exuberant at the chance of being depicted as saints for harbouring and feeding illegals in their churches while there were still Canadian homeless hungry on the streets.
The Green Party was over the moon about how culturally enriched the invasion would make our country, even though the environment would take a big hit from the bigger footprint from all those extra people. Oh, I forgot, “it is not how many people there are, it is how they live”. So everybody strip down to your loin clothes and live like Ghandi to accommodate the invasion.
Most of all, Mark Kelly’s colleagues were exhilarated at the idea of once again focusing on the plight of an illegal immigrant rather than on the widely dispersed suffering of those who have lost their jobs. Making a human interest story out of poor Felippe hiding out in Nelson, B.C. makes for better copy than covering the unemployment rate in the region.
When it was learned that Kelly’s program was a hoax, panic set in among the CBC audience. Now it seemed that their perverse love of foreigners at the expense of their own countrymen would have to find another outlet. For the time being they would just have to reflexively criticize those who put Canadians first and scream about xenophobia.
Tim Murray
July 1,.2008
Canada Day
Rendered in the style of a radio news story with bulletins of UFO landings in the West Kootenays, reports had Mexicans and Central Americans pouring down ramps of flying saucers threatening to force Canadians to adapt to their language, values and customs. Just what the left-wing audience wanted to hear. Kelly, the consummate pro, had the politically correct CBC groupies completely duped.
As a result, environmentalists like the local Sierra Club who had been working to reduce per capita consumption suddenly became gleeful at the notion of total consumption increasing to wipe out all those gains. With the environment getting worse, they would have something to do, a raison d’etre.
Labour leaders became excited at the prospect of poor illegal immigrants displacing the jobs of low income Canadian workers and depressing the wages of those who managed to retain their jobs in the wake of the invasion. They’ll just grow the union by organizing those illegal immigrants, right? That’s the motive, more dues, isn’t it?
Clergymen were exuberant at the chance of being depicted as saints for harbouring and feeding illegals in their churches while there were still Canadian homeless hungry on the streets.
The Green Party was over the moon about how culturally enriched the invasion would make our country, even though the environment would take a big hit from the bigger footprint from all those extra people. Oh, I forgot, “it is not how many people there are, it is how they live”. So everybody strip down to your loin clothes and live like Ghandi to accommodate the invasion.
Most of all, Mark Kelly’s colleagues were exhilarated at the idea of once again focusing on the plight of an illegal immigrant rather than on the widely dispersed suffering of those who have lost their jobs. Making a human interest story out of poor Felippe hiding out in Nelson, B.C. makes for better copy than covering the unemployment rate in the region.
When it was learned that Kelly’s program was a hoax, panic set in among the CBC audience. Now it seemed that their perverse love of foreigners at the expense of their own countrymen would have to find another outlet. For the time being they would just have to reflexively criticize those who put Canadians first and scream about xenophobia.
Tim Murray
July 1,.2008
Canada Day
Saturday, June 28, 2008
HOW GREEN IS "SMART" GROWTH REALLY?
Dear Ben West, Chairperson of The Green Party of Vancouver,
A friend has alerted me to a quote you have made in a letter you wrote to the Mayor of Vancouver, Sam Sullivan:
"Densification is of course environmentally positive in so far as it prevents the devastation of agricultural lands or wilderness areas but this initiative if not part of an overarching smart growth land use plan would not accomplish this goal."
I have some questions for you.
How is it "environmentally positive" to concentrate people into highrise apartment complexes where it takes massive energy inputs to treat their drinking water and sewage, run their elevators, maintain their multi-story parking garages, power their artificial indoor fitness club environments, and bring them food and resources from distances that grow in proportion to their population size, giving them no hope of growing their own food to survive the new end-of-cheap-energy era?
Isn't it more environmentally friendly for people to live in the country where their water needs no chlorine or UV treatment and their sewage requires no chemical treatments and their septic tank uses less energy per person in its lifecycle than urban waste treatment facilities? Just because people own no land doesn't mean they don't require resources from land in order to survive. Wouldn't it make more sense for people to live on the same land where their food comes from, work this land with their own muscle instead of with machines, and find wood for heating and building materials from their own land instead of importing it from far-away industrial clearcuts? Of course, for this ultra low footprint lifestyle (rural, not urban) to work really well, there would have to be few enough people that each person could have enough quality and quantity of land that they could be self-sufficient without breaking their back.
In the upcoming era of depleted fossil fuels whereby the only oil, coal, wood, and natural gas remaining will take more energy to extract than what you get out of it, we simply will not have a use for so many urban bureaucrats living densely in highrise apartments. The earth's carrying capacity will be drastically reduced due to lack of energy resources. Finding a new unprecedentedly abundant source of energy with zero impact on the environment is not only impossible, but it is also undesirable as it would enable humans to further grow their population, which would displace even more other species, destroy biodiversity services, and therefore lower quality of life on earth for humans.
Would you agree that it is not just the average consumer's consumption level that is relevant, but also the number of consumers?
Whether population growth occurs in the city, in the suburbs, or in the country, is there such a thing as "Smart Growth" when it still involves population growth, which guarantees that environmental damage will increase no matter what conservation measures are imposed? (HINT: Each person must consume finite resources and produce waste just in order to survive. If the number of people keeps growing, it is only a matter of time before the total environmental damage increases even if the theoretical minimum for average per capita consumption is achieved.)
Are you one of those people who uses cliches like "You can't stop progress" or "Growth is inevitable" as a cop-out excuse for letting our environment get worse, while lying at the same time by telling people that our environment can get better alongside continued population growth so long as this growth is "managed/contained/smart/densification/steered/deflected"?
How long will Canada's protected areas be protected if our 1% annual population growth trend continues (doubling our numbers every 70 years); how many National and Provincial Parks will relax legislation to allow agriculture, roads, power corridor easements, mining, native hunting, increased camp sites and recreational development, etc to meet this growing demand? How many Parks will incidentally fall victim to air and groundwater pollution as well as poaching and alien specvies infestations caused by Canada's population growth?
Would it not be prudent for the Green Party of Canada to advocate lower immigration to Canada so that Canada can set a good example in an overpopulated world by reducing its population to a sustainable level to avoid mass species extinctions and human deaths due to the downside of Peak Food caused by fossil fuel depletion?
Thanks and I look forward to your reply,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com
A friend has alerted me to a quote you have made in a letter you wrote to the Mayor of Vancouver, Sam Sullivan:
"Densification is of course environmentally positive in so far as it prevents the devastation of agricultural lands or wilderness areas but this initiative if not part of an overarching smart growth land use plan would not accomplish this goal."
I have some questions for you.
How is it "environmentally positive" to concentrate people into highrise apartment complexes where it takes massive energy inputs to treat their drinking water and sewage, run their elevators, maintain their multi-story parking garages, power their artificial indoor fitness club environments, and bring them food and resources from distances that grow in proportion to their population size, giving them no hope of growing their own food to survive the new end-of-cheap-energy era?
Isn't it more environmentally friendly for people to live in the country where their water needs no chlorine or UV treatment and their sewage requires no chemical treatments and their septic tank uses less energy per person in its lifecycle than urban waste treatment facilities? Just because people own no land doesn't mean they don't require resources from land in order to survive. Wouldn't it make more sense for people to live on the same land where their food comes from, work this land with their own muscle instead of with machines, and find wood for heating and building materials from their own land instead of importing it from far-away industrial clearcuts? Of course, for this ultra low footprint lifestyle (rural, not urban) to work really well, there would have to be few enough people that each person could have enough quality and quantity of land that they could be self-sufficient without breaking their back.
In the upcoming era of depleted fossil fuels whereby the only oil, coal, wood, and natural gas remaining will take more energy to extract than what you get out of it, we simply will not have a use for so many urban bureaucrats living densely in highrise apartments. The earth's carrying capacity will be drastically reduced due to lack of energy resources. Finding a new unprecedentedly abundant source of energy with zero impact on the environment is not only impossible, but it is also undesirable as it would enable humans to further grow their population, which would displace even more other species, destroy biodiversity services, and therefore lower quality of life on earth for humans.
Would you agree that it is not just the average consumer's consumption level that is relevant, but also the number of consumers?
Whether population growth occurs in the city, in the suburbs, or in the country, is there such a thing as "Smart Growth" when it still involves population growth, which guarantees that environmental damage will increase no matter what conservation measures are imposed? (HINT: Each person must consume finite resources and produce waste just in order to survive. If the number of people keeps growing, it is only a matter of time before the total environmental damage increases even if the theoretical minimum for average per capita consumption is achieved.)
Are you one of those people who uses cliches like "You can't stop progress" or "Growth is inevitable" as a cop-out excuse for letting our environment get worse, while lying at the same time by telling people that our environment can get better alongside continued population growth so long as this growth is "managed/contained/smart/densification/steered/deflected"?
How long will Canada's protected areas be protected if our 1% annual population growth trend continues (doubling our numbers every 70 years); how many National and Provincial Parks will relax legislation to allow agriculture, roads, power corridor easements, mining, native hunting, increased camp sites and recreational development, etc to meet this growing demand? How many Parks will incidentally fall victim to air and groundwater pollution as well as poaching and alien specvies infestations caused by Canada's population growth?
Would it not be prudent for the Green Party of Canada to advocate lower immigration to Canada so that Canada can set a good example in an overpopulated world by reducing its population to a sustainable level to avoid mass species extinctions and human deaths due to the downside of Peak Food caused by fossil fuel depletion?
Thanks and I look forward to your reply,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com
FRIENDLY ULTIMATUM TO THE SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA
We still value your opinion.
We’re working to create our vision for Sierra Club Canada five years from now.
If you haven't had a chance to complete this opinion survey, we'd like to remind you that you still can!
It will take a little of your time, but will make a great difference to our planning!
We would appreciate your reply by Friday, July 4. Please use this link to fill out your survey.---Sierra Club of Canada
Dear Sierra Club,
This is just a friendly reminder that you have until Friday, July 4th to reply to MY “survey”. This was the set of questions I sent to you to pre-empt the pre-fabricated set of twenty-one questions that you sent to me, not a single one of which mentioned over-population or over-immigration as an issue or factor to be considered in the environmental degradation of Canada. Kind of like my fitness instructor stressing cardio, strength training and flexibility without mentioning my chain smoking habit.
Please reply to my questions by my arbitrary deadline or I will continue to follow your lead and make policy decisions without your input.
Remember our slogan. “Tell us what we want to hear or take us off your list!” (but we ‘ll never take you off of ours. And Oh, of course, send us your money to save our poster endangered animal of the month….”
In case you have forgotten, these were the questions in MY survey:
And if you think we should just keep tightening our belts to accommodate more and immigrants, cut back our per capita consumption more and more just to increase total consumption through immigration more and more, tell us, how many immigrants is too many for you? Another 10? 20? 30? 40? 50 million? How many Canadians would there be in an ecologically sound Canada as defined by Sierra Club Canada? Do you have any evidence that wildlife “sanctuaries” and reserves enjoy permanent safety from human population growth? As for Sustainable Energy options, is there a technological fix for the species lost from human population growth? Is there a technological fix for marine life eradicated from over harvesting and pollution? Is there a technological fix for soils exhausted by 10,000 years of intensive farming? Why does the Sierra Club think that climate change warrants more concern than the loss of biodiversity services? Why does the Sierra Club not seem to understand that population that is the underlying agency of both? No climate change without climate changers. Growing cities shrinking wilderness.
One should also ask: Why haven't you taken action on your leader Stephen Hazell's comments on TVO's May 5, 2008 "The Agenda" when he said we should decide what an optimum population for Canada is? What do you believe an optimum population for Canada is? Are you afraid of covering this uncharted territory because you don't know of a politically correct way to answer that question? Is Mr. Hazell afraid to follow through on his own advice?
SOURCE:
http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/theagenda/audio/TAWSP_Dbt_20080505_0_0_40k.mp3
http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/05/review-of-tvos-agenda-may-5-2008.html
This is MY survey. I will not be confined by your prefabricated questions. The questions I need answering involve your complicity in the overpopulation of Canada, and your focus on inconsequential feel-good concepts of consumption, conservation and recycling. Remember it is our total consumption which is relevant, not our per capita consumption.
Tim Murray,
Quadra Island, BC
Home of the sanctimonious
Sierra Quadra Club
Motto “Take HIM off the island”
We’re working to create our vision for Sierra Club Canada five years from now.
If you haven't had a chance to complete this opinion survey, we'd like to remind you that you still can!
It will take a little of your time, but will make a great difference to our planning!
We would appreciate your reply by Friday, July 4. Please use this link to fill out your survey.---Sierra Club of Canada
Dear Sierra Club,
This is just a friendly reminder that you have until Friday, July 4th to reply to MY “survey”. This was the set of questions I sent to you to pre-empt the pre-fabricated set of twenty-one questions that you sent to me, not a single one of which mentioned over-population or over-immigration as an issue or factor to be considered in the environmental degradation of Canada. Kind of like my fitness instructor stressing cardio, strength training and flexibility without mentioning my chain smoking habit.
Please reply to my questions by my arbitrary deadline or I will continue to follow your lead and make policy decisions without your input.
Remember our slogan. “Tell us what we want to hear or take us off your list!” (but we ‘ll never take you off of ours. And Oh, of course, send us your money to save our poster endangered animal of the month….”
In case you have forgotten, these were the questions in MY survey:
And if you think we should just keep tightening our belts to accommodate more and immigrants, cut back our per capita consumption more and more just to increase total consumption through immigration more and more, tell us, how many immigrants is too many for you? Another 10? 20? 30? 40? 50 million? How many Canadians would there be in an ecologically sound Canada as defined by Sierra Club Canada? Do you have any evidence that wildlife “sanctuaries” and reserves enjoy permanent safety from human population growth? As for Sustainable Energy options, is there a technological fix for the species lost from human population growth? Is there a technological fix for marine life eradicated from over harvesting and pollution? Is there a technological fix for soils exhausted by 10,000 years of intensive farming? Why does the Sierra Club think that climate change warrants more concern than the loss of biodiversity services? Why does the Sierra Club not seem to understand that population that is the underlying agency of both? No climate change without climate changers. Growing cities shrinking wilderness.
One should also ask: Why haven't you taken action on your leader Stephen Hazell's comments on TVO's May 5, 2008 "The Agenda" when he said we should decide what an optimum population for Canada is? What do you believe an optimum population for Canada is? Are you afraid of covering this uncharted territory because you don't know of a politically correct way to answer that question? Is Mr. Hazell afraid to follow through on his own advice?
SOURCE:
http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/theagenda/audio/TAWSP_Dbt_20080505_0_0_40k.mp3
http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/05/review-of-tvos-agenda-may-5-2008.html
This is MY survey. I will not be confined by your prefabricated questions. The questions I need answering involve your complicity in the overpopulation of Canada, and your focus on inconsequential feel-good concepts of consumption, conservation and recycling. Remember it is our total consumption which is relevant, not our per capita consumption.
Tim Murray,
Quadra Island, BC
Home of the sanctimonious
Sierra Quadra Club
Motto “Take HIM off the island”
Friday, June 27, 2008
DR. HYPOCRITE AND HIS HYBRID CAR
In the world of feel-good environmentalism, where the incantation to “reduce, recycle and conserve” achieves virtually nothing except provide you with a sense of moral superiority over your redneck neighbour, driving a hybrid car is the equivalent of pulling out a bottle of vintage Beaujolais before your boss and his wife at a dinner party. Snob appeal.
So it could only be for His Holiness, CBC darling Dr. David Hypocrite, one of Mother Corp’s anointed all-time top ten Greatest Canadians, to be driving a Toyota Prius. But guess what? It turns out its all for show. It’s all bull shit. And the word has been out for more than a year. But any environmentalist of his reputed caliber with a “holistic” vision, should have seen it.
The Toyota Prius is a hoax. Forget the focus on fuel economy, on depleting oil supplies. Look at the broad issues. Of energy costs incurred from inception through disposal, as only 15% of energy costs occur while driving the vehicle. Look at raw material production, sourcing, car production, car maintenance and the disposal of the vehicle at the end of its life. Look at, as a CNW Marketing Study put it, from “Dust to Dust”. When analyzed from that perspective, CNW’s verdict was unequivocal. A Hummer was will last three times longer, and use less continued energy over its lifespan, as incredible as that may sound to the conventional green mind.
Building a Toyota Prius is not an environmentally friendly process either. Toyota buys 1000 tons of nickel from that toxic nickel plant in Sudbury, Ontario---not a significant portion, but a contribution nonetheless---where it escapes a canopy of sulphur dioxide enroute to the coal-burning economy of China, which converts it to “nickel foam”. From there it goes to Japan and then by oil fuelled ships to the United States to become batteries for a “green” car. It would be poetic justice if the environmentalist who bought his Prius had to tour a battery manufacturing plant, or have a bucket of toxic goo delivered with his new car to his townhome in the suburbs.
And how long do these batteries last? Dr. H. confided that he was needing to replace his battery for $2000. But another customer called his Toyota dealer and was told that the cost of replacing the battery and the inverter for this “green” car whose lifespan is 100,000 miles was going to set him back a cool $4500. Now just think what that will do to re-sale values. Yes gas prices are high. But now you have to put up $4500 to get this hybrid on the road. Looks like the Sierra Club is going to send a lot of metal to our junk yards. And as one critic observed, “if we have problems disposing of flashlight batteries because of the harm done to the done to the environment, how are we going to dispose of batteries used to power cars?” Imagine if every Green Party dupe, every socialist bore, every holier than thou CBC listener bought a battery operated car, how many nuclear power plants would be needed to recharge the batteries? What would that do to cancer rates?
It’s no wonder that, according to the CNW study, the combined energy to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship of green energy crusaders, takes almost 50% more energy than a hated Hummer. The Prius costs $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles, while the Hummer costs a mere $1.95 per mile , in relation, over its expected lifespan of 300,000 miles. Of course, there are better alternatives to either in the Toyota Scion x B at $0.48 per mile or a Chevy Aveo.
Given these facts, one wonders why those literate in environmental matters and endowed with investigate skills would have fall prey to the marketing fad of hybrid vehicles? The answer can be found in this sentence from the March 14, 2007 issue of Science and Technology News: “The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care.” Stress upon the word “show”. Yes indeed. It is more important in yuppie Greendom to be seen to be ecologically correct than it is to be ecologically correct---or effective. And Doctor H. is a Master of Show. He is, after all, in show business. For his behaviour consistently conflicts with his professed ideals.
He rails against climate change but has sired five Suzukis who, if average, collectively emit 214 metric tonnes of green house gasses annually or 86 times more GHG than my compact Japanese car. That’s right. His five Suzukis do more damage than my one Suzuki. He would do the environment a greater favour by ditching the Prius and getting a conventional economy car to commute between his several energy-guzzling homes and to the airport, where he could make his plane trips to the Queen Charlottes to rendezvous with his native friends who provide cover for him to over-fish and over-hunt for needed “r an r”. Recharged, he can fly back to YVR, total CO2 expenditure .756 tonnes, and spend the same carbon on a connecting flight to his Ivory Tower at the CBC Studio in Toronto. The CBC Thought Police will then give him a podium to tell the world how us white-ass consumers are living beyond our means and having no respect for limits---like the natives, who are a model for us all, at one with nature. You know, the folks who get a free pass from environmentalists like Doctor H. while hunting the endangered polar bear, narwhals, and belugas with modern machines and signing contracts with logging, oil, gas and mining companies.
Here’s some questions for Dr. H. and his many millions of loyal CBC groupies across the land, and for those enamoured with hybrid cars. Since roughly 60% of us drive a car every day, mathematical symmetry would project that each year an additional 150,000 immigrant drivers would become daily users of Canadian roads. What dear green leftie, is the point of energy conservation of any kind in the face of your blind, determined and deliberate effort to create more energy consumers through mass immigration of the ridiculous scale of recent decades ? What is the point of improving efficiency but not reducing total energy consumption?
We don’t need energy efficient cars so much as fewer drivers.Fewer people fewer drivers.
So it could only be for His Holiness, CBC darling Dr. David Hypocrite, one of Mother Corp’s anointed all-time top ten Greatest Canadians, to be driving a Toyota Prius. But guess what? It turns out its all for show. It’s all bull shit. And the word has been out for more than a year. But any environmentalist of his reputed caliber with a “holistic” vision, should have seen it.
The Toyota Prius is a hoax. Forget the focus on fuel economy, on depleting oil supplies. Look at the broad issues. Of energy costs incurred from inception through disposal, as only 15% of energy costs occur while driving the vehicle. Look at raw material production, sourcing, car production, car maintenance and the disposal of the vehicle at the end of its life. Look at, as a CNW Marketing Study put it, from “Dust to Dust”. When analyzed from that perspective, CNW’s verdict was unequivocal. A Hummer was will last three times longer, and use less continued energy over its lifespan, as incredible as that may sound to the conventional green mind.
Building a Toyota Prius is not an environmentally friendly process either. Toyota buys 1000 tons of nickel from that toxic nickel plant in Sudbury, Ontario---not a significant portion, but a contribution nonetheless---where it escapes a canopy of sulphur dioxide enroute to the coal-burning economy of China, which converts it to “nickel foam”. From there it goes to Japan and then by oil fuelled ships to the United States to become batteries for a “green” car. It would be poetic justice if the environmentalist who bought his Prius had to tour a battery manufacturing plant, or have a bucket of toxic goo delivered with his new car to his townhome in the suburbs.
And how long do these batteries last? Dr. H. confided that he was needing to replace his battery for $2000. But another customer called his Toyota dealer and was told that the cost of replacing the battery and the inverter for this “green” car whose lifespan is 100,000 miles was going to set him back a cool $4500. Now just think what that will do to re-sale values. Yes gas prices are high. But now you have to put up $4500 to get this hybrid on the road. Looks like the Sierra Club is going to send a lot of metal to our junk yards. And as one critic observed, “if we have problems disposing of flashlight batteries because of the harm done to the done to the environment, how are we going to dispose of batteries used to power cars?” Imagine if every Green Party dupe, every socialist bore, every holier than thou CBC listener bought a battery operated car, how many nuclear power plants would be needed to recharge the batteries? What would that do to cancer rates?
It’s no wonder that, according to the CNW study, the combined energy to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship of green energy crusaders, takes almost 50% more energy than a hated Hummer. The Prius costs $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles, while the Hummer costs a mere $1.95 per mile , in relation, over its expected lifespan of 300,000 miles. Of course, there are better alternatives to either in the Toyota Scion x B at $0.48 per mile or a Chevy Aveo.
Given these facts, one wonders why those literate in environmental matters and endowed with investigate skills would have fall prey to the marketing fad of hybrid vehicles? The answer can be found in this sentence from the March 14, 2007 issue of Science and Technology News: “The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care.” Stress upon the word “show”. Yes indeed. It is more important in yuppie Greendom to be seen to be ecologically correct than it is to be ecologically correct---or effective. And Doctor H. is a Master of Show. He is, after all, in show business. For his behaviour consistently conflicts with his professed ideals.
He rails against climate change but has sired five Suzukis who, if average, collectively emit 214 metric tonnes of green house gasses annually or 86 times more GHG than my compact Japanese car. That’s right. His five Suzukis do more damage than my one Suzuki. He would do the environment a greater favour by ditching the Prius and getting a conventional economy car to commute between his several energy-guzzling homes and to the airport, where he could make his plane trips to the Queen Charlottes to rendezvous with his native friends who provide cover for him to over-fish and over-hunt for needed “r an r”. Recharged, he can fly back to YVR, total CO2 expenditure .756 tonnes, and spend the same carbon on a connecting flight to his Ivory Tower at the CBC Studio in Toronto. The CBC Thought Police will then give him a podium to tell the world how us white-ass consumers are living beyond our means and having no respect for limits---like the natives, who are a model for us all, at one with nature. You know, the folks who get a free pass from environmentalists like Doctor H. while hunting the endangered polar bear, narwhals, and belugas with modern machines and signing contracts with logging, oil, gas and mining companies.
Here’s some questions for Dr. H. and his many millions of loyal CBC groupies across the land, and for those enamoured with hybrid cars. Since roughly 60% of us drive a car every day, mathematical symmetry would project that each year an additional 150,000 immigrant drivers would become daily users of Canadian roads. What dear green leftie, is the point of energy conservation of any kind in the face of your blind, determined and deliberate effort to create more energy consumers through mass immigration of the ridiculous scale of recent decades ? What is the point of improving efficiency but not reducing total energy consumption?
We don’t need energy efficient cars so much as fewer drivers.Fewer people fewer drivers.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
NOW THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM ME? The Sierra Club's Selective Hearing
At the conclusion of the showing of the Gore documentary on global warming the local Sierra Club prevented me from circulating leaflets critical of Gore’s, and the Sierra Club’s omission of population growth as a factor in climate change. My opinion was not valuable to them.
In mid March of that same year, 2007, when the census report revealed that Canada suffered the highest population growth rate of all G8 countries, I , together with Brishen Hoff, took the Sierra Club to task for failing to publicly cite government immigration policy as a key factor in environmental degradation. All across Canada, director after director in the Sierra Club screamed of harassment and demanded that they be “taken off” our list.” Not a single one would engage our argument or debate with us. Our opinion was not valuable to them.
To commemorate Earth Day a tribute was sent out to scores of Sierra Club directors on April 18, 2008 to celebrate the life of three time Nobel Peace Prize nominee David Brower. It spoke of Brower as the catalyst in changing the Sierra Club from an insignificant group of affluent apolitical hikers to an aggressive player on the national environmental scene. For all intents and purposes he was the Sierra Club.
But imagine the Pope resigning from the Vatican in disgust over corruption. Well Brower resigned because he could no longer stomach a corrupt, money-grubbing, corporate-lackey that accepted a massive annual $100 million bribe to leave immigration, a vital ingredient of environmental ruin, out of the policy book. And unlike Elizabeth May, he knew that you couldn’t make the ecological consequences of an immigration wave go away with magic—“abra-kadabra Smart Growth”--- “ Poof” -- gone!
The directors of Canada’s Sierra Club did not want to read this. It was a replay of March 2007. “Take me off your list” was the chorus. One was incredulous. “I am just a volunteer. I am no corporate lackey.” All Sierrans have this self-image as white, or should I say, green, knights, as selfless crusaders, fighting off evil polluters , malevolent energy corporations, and logging companies etc. In fact, they are their junior partners, green collaborators in a neo-liberal agenda to import as much cheap labour as possible, whether in the form of white collar IT workers, unskilled labour or professionals that never get placed. All fuel for the consumer economy, all able to wipe out the gains in energy conservation or recycling or occupy the new subdivisions that developers want to spread over wildlife habitat. They will readily put the smallest energy proposal or mining application up against an environmental impact statement, but give a free pass to a government’s immigration policy that will add millions to the national population and have ecological impact far exceeding the brushfires they are trying to put out.
Once upon a time the Sierra Club, north and south of the 49th, did in fact believe in the IPAT equation. It was easier to then, before the age of political correctness. But now it is more important not to offend its yuppie subscription base than to tell the truth. The truth is, Canada’s environment cannot be saved unless we stabilize, and reduce, our population. For those who do not want to hear that truth, why ask for it? And why now?
These are the questions I must ask as the Sierra Club of Canada has sent out an opinion survey by email. I must pre-empt their survey with my own:
And if you think we should just keep tightening our belts to accommodate more and immigrants, cut back our per capita consumption more and more just increase total consumption through immigration more and more, tell us, how many immigrants is too many for you? Another 10? 20? 30? 40? 50 million? How many Canadians would there be in an ecologically sound Canada as defined by Sierra Club Canada? Do you have any evidence that wildlife “sanctuaries” and reserves enjoy permanent safety from human population growth? As for Sustainable Energy options, is there a technological fix for the species lost from human population growth? Is there a technological fix for marine life eradicated from over harvesting and pollution? Is there a technological fix for soils exhausted by 10,000 years of intensive farming? Why does the Sierra Club think that climate change warrants more concern than the loss of biodiversity services? Why does the Sierra Club not seem to understand that is population that is the underlying agency of both? No climate change without climate changers. Growing cities shrinking wilderness.
This is MY survey. I will not be confined by your prefabricated questions. The questions I need answering involve your complicity in the overpopulation of Canada, and your focus on inconsequential feel-good concepts of consumption, conservation and recycling. Remember it is our total consumption which is relevant, not our per capita consumption.
I will value your opinion when you begin to value mine.
Tim Murray
Vice President
Biodiversity First
June 24/08
The Sierra Club Survey: Most revealing about the Sierra Club Survey is Question 5. Respondents are asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 what issue is most important to them, and how effective the Sierra Club is in responding to it. Of 16 issues listed, from “agriculture” to “youth empowerment”, there is no mention at all of population, overpopulation, immigration, or over-immigration. And of the 21 questions in the survey there is no mention of these topics either. Yet some Sierra Club directors will swear up and down that overpopulation is a “concern”. Yeah right. Maybe in Central Africa
SIERRA CLUB SURVEY (introduction):
We value your opinion.
We’re working to create our vision for Sierra Club Canada five years from now. Please will you help us by filling out this opinion survey. It will take a little of your time, but will make a great difference to our planning!
We would appreciate your reply by Friday, July 4. Please use this link to fill out your survey.
Thank you so much. (If you've already completed the survey - Thanks again!)
Votre opinion nous est importante.
Nous œuvrons pour créer notre vision de Sierra Club Canada dans cinq ans. Pouvez-vous nous aider en prenant ce sondage pour nous donner votre avis ? Il faudra y passer un peu de temps, mais fera une grande différence durant notre planification !
Remplissez ce sondage en ligne ici, avant le Vendredi, 4 Juillet, s’il-vous-plait.
Nous vous remercions d’avance de nous rendre ce service. (Si vous l’avez déjà fait – Merci encore !)
In mid March of that same year, 2007, when the census report revealed that Canada suffered the highest population growth rate of all G8 countries, I , together with Brishen Hoff, took the Sierra Club to task for failing to publicly cite government immigration policy as a key factor in environmental degradation. All across Canada, director after director in the Sierra Club screamed of harassment and demanded that they be “taken off” our list.” Not a single one would engage our argument or debate with us. Our opinion was not valuable to them.
To commemorate Earth Day a tribute was sent out to scores of Sierra Club directors on April 18, 2008 to celebrate the life of three time Nobel Peace Prize nominee David Brower. It spoke of Brower as the catalyst in changing the Sierra Club from an insignificant group of affluent apolitical hikers to an aggressive player on the national environmental scene. For all intents and purposes he was the Sierra Club.
But imagine the Pope resigning from the Vatican in disgust over corruption. Well Brower resigned because he could no longer stomach a corrupt, money-grubbing, corporate-lackey that accepted a massive annual $100 million bribe to leave immigration, a vital ingredient of environmental ruin, out of the policy book. And unlike Elizabeth May, he knew that you couldn’t make the ecological consequences of an immigration wave go away with magic—“abra-kadabra Smart Growth”--- “ Poof” -- gone!
The directors of Canada’s Sierra Club did not want to read this. It was a replay of March 2007. “Take me off your list” was the chorus. One was incredulous. “I am just a volunteer. I am no corporate lackey.” All Sierrans have this self-image as white, or should I say, green, knights, as selfless crusaders, fighting off evil polluters , malevolent energy corporations, and logging companies etc. In fact, they are their junior partners, green collaborators in a neo-liberal agenda to import as much cheap labour as possible, whether in the form of white collar IT workers, unskilled labour or professionals that never get placed. All fuel for the consumer economy, all able to wipe out the gains in energy conservation or recycling or occupy the new subdivisions that developers want to spread over wildlife habitat. They will readily put the smallest energy proposal or mining application up against an environmental impact statement, but give a free pass to a government’s immigration policy that will add millions to the national population and have ecological impact far exceeding the brushfires they are trying to put out.
Once upon a time the Sierra Club, north and south of the 49th, did in fact believe in the IPAT equation. It was easier to then, before the age of political correctness. But now it is more important not to offend its yuppie subscription base than to tell the truth. The truth is, Canada’s environment cannot be saved unless we stabilize, and reduce, our population. For those who do not want to hear that truth, why ask for it? And why now?
These are the questions I must ask as the Sierra Club of Canada has sent out an opinion survey by email. I must pre-empt their survey with my own:
And if you think we should just keep tightening our belts to accommodate more and immigrants, cut back our per capita consumption more and more just increase total consumption through immigration more and more, tell us, how many immigrants is too many for you? Another 10? 20? 30? 40? 50 million? How many Canadians would there be in an ecologically sound Canada as defined by Sierra Club Canada? Do you have any evidence that wildlife “sanctuaries” and reserves enjoy permanent safety from human population growth? As for Sustainable Energy options, is there a technological fix for the species lost from human population growth? Is there a technological fix for marine life eradicated from over harvesting and pollution? Is there a technological fix for soils exhausted by 10,000 years of intensive farming? Why does the Sierra Club think that climate change warrants more concern than the loss of biodiversity services? Why does the Sierra Club not seem to understand that is population that is the underlying agency of both? No climate change without climate changers. Growing cities shrinking wilderness.
This is MY survey. I will not be confined by your prefabricated questions. The questions I need answering involve your complicity in the overpopulation of Canada, and your focus on inconsequential feel-good concepts of consumption, conservation and recycling. Remember it is our total consumption which is relevant, not our per capita consumption.
I will value your opinion when you begin to value mine.
Tim Murray
Vice President
Biodiversity First
June 24/08
The Sierra Club Survey: Most revealing about the Sierra Club Survey is Question 5. Respondents are asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 what issue is most important to them, and how effective the Sierra Club is in responding to it. Of 16 issues listed, from “agriculture” to “youth empowerment”, there is no mention at all of population, overpopulation, immigration, or over-immigration. And of the 21 questions in the survey there is no mention of these topics either. Yet some Sierra Club directors will swear up and down that overpopulation is a “concern”. Yeah right. Maybe in Central Africa
SIERRA CLUB SURVEY (introduction):
We value your opinion.
We’re working to create our vision for Sierra Club Canada five years from now. Please will you help us by filling out this opinion survey. It will take a little of your time, but will make a great difference to our planning!
We would appreciate your reply by Friday, July 4. Please use this link to fill out your survey.
Thank you so much. (If you've already completed the survey - Thanks again!)
Votre opinion nous est importante.
Nous œuvrons pour créer notre vision de Sierra Club Canada dans cinq ans. Pouvez-vous nous aider en prenant ce sondage pour nous donner votre avis ? Il faudra y passer un peu de temps, mais fera une grande différence durant notre planification !
Remplissez ce sondage en ligne ici, avant le Vendredi, 4 Juillet, s’il-vous-plait.
Nous vous remercions d’avance de nous rendre ce service. (Si vous l’avez déjà fait – Merci encore !)
Sunday, June 22, 2008
THE COLLUSION OF THE LEFT IN THE NEO-LIBERAL AGENDA
Alistair McConnachie explains how the Left is driven by its ideology of "equality" and how it dishonestly manipulates the fine idea of solidarity to collude in destructive capitalism and ecological disaster.
This article was published originally in the September 2006 issue of Sovereignty.
http://sovereignty.org.UK/
________________________________________
There were fears of a new wave of clandestine migrants from eastern Europe last night after Poland announced it is opening its doors to workers from outside the EU.
In an attempt to ease labour shortages, people from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus will no longer need work permits to enter the country.
With thousands of its citizens flocking to the UK, Poland finds itself short of skilled workers.
(Unaccredited, "Poland in new migrant alert",
The Scottish Daily Mail, 2-9-06, p.55)
Irony of ironies! Poland is short of skilled workers because they're all flocking to Britain because, allegedly, we're short of skilled workers!
Such is the absurdity of neo-liberalism -- the term which has come to refer to minimum government intervention in the economy, or government intervention intended to ensure complete freedom of movement of capital and labour.
This article demonstrates that neo-liberalism is upheld by those on the Left as well as those on the Right.
On the question of free movement of labour, the free-marketeers and capitalists on the Right meet the anti-capitalists and anarchists on the Left in complete agreement.
The reason the free-marketeers uphold a central pillar of neo-liberalism -- free movement of people - is their desire to make a lot of money.
The free-marketeers cannot speak out against free movement of labour because that would require them to re-assess their commitment to free movement of capital.
It's unfortunate that some anti-EU groups simplistically advocate "free trade" without thinking it through properly and realising that the full implications may often be the antithesis of their professed belief in national sovereignty, both political and economic. After all, even if we left the EU, cheap labour would still come here, unless there were restrictions set on this particular aspect of "free trade."
The reason the anti-capitalists uphold a central pillar of neo-liberalism -- free movement of people - is their desire to promote "equality".
In this regard, the Left emphasise "international workers' solidarity". This can often be a very good idea.
CONSTRUCTIVE SOLIDARITY and POLITICALLY PERVERSE "SOLIDARITY"
For example, I realise that if my job is shipped to Mexico, the Mexican worker will probably have a pretty crummy job working for low-wages in poor conditions.
I can accept that the system is screwing us both.
We all benefit when living standards and working conditions rise in other countries. It means there is less chance of an employer in this country bailing out and going abroad to exploit cheap labour and poor working conditions, and there will be less of a migration push from these countries.
I can understand that if I can help the Mexican build a better economic system for his own country, then maybe in time there will be less incentive for the system to ship my next job out there, or to force his family over here.
In this sense, solidarity with workers internationally is an appropriate and fine thing, to be encouraged. Sovereignty carries a slogan on its back page, with every issue, which advocates "Solidarity with Farmers Internationally."
However, the idea of "solidarity" becomes a very bad thing if it is misused as a rhetorical device to neuter my opposition to having my living space invaded, or my work and wages undermined, or my environment destroyed, or when I'm expected to condone unlawful behaviour in its name.
For example, when we're expected to show "solidarity" with the massive influx of immigrants, especially the illegal ones -- which the Left like to call "irregular" -- and bogus asylum seekers, and to put from our minds the political, social, economic and ecological consequences of this immigration invasion -- for the greater notion of "solidarity".
In that sense, "solidarity" is simply a slogan being used to undermine my rights and to prevent me articulating them and to stop me standing up for myself, and my group's interests. It is in this politically perverted sense that the Left today almost always use the term.
THE DRIVING IDEOLOGY OF "EQUALITY"
Why do the Left insist on doing this?
Why do they seek to geld opposition to neo-liberalism from the working class by misusing the idea of "international solidarity" when it is not appropriate to the circumstances, nor the interests, of the people to whom they are speaking?
The reason is because the Left's over-arching ideology of "equality" demands that they put "equality for all" before the interests of any specific element of the working class.
Therefore, if working class people in England are being displaced from apprenticeships, or jobs, by already qualified Eastern Europeans, or Somali refugees, then the Leftist will not stand up for the English indigenous working class because his doctrine of "equality" mandates that he cannot and must not "discriminate" between people in any way.
Therefore, he will argue that the Somali has a right to this job too and that the Englishman needs to see himself, not as part of a national citizenry, but rather as part of an amorphous "international working class" in which he is "equal" with this Somali and shares "solidarity" with this Somali "working class person". Viewed this way, the Englishman can only lose.
To promote "equality", the Englishman is expected to deny his interests, forfeit his rights and cede his space in the name of "solidarity" with someone he's never met, who is likely not a citizen, and is probably a law-breaker!
As a consequence of its ideological obsession with "equality", the Left cannot and will not oppose free movement of labour and so it must try deliberately to pervert and misuse the idea of solidarity in order to neuter any working class opposition to the open-borders of neo-liberalism.
The Left's obsession with "solidarity" can sometimes have its amusing manifestations.
I had a conversation with a Lefty in Buchanan Street this month. He was standing beside a stall and wanted me to sign a petition showing "solidarity" with some Cubans who, for reasons he was not able to explain clearly, had been thrown in jail in Miami!
Faintly amused, I smiled and said I didn't think that was of much relevance to people in Glasgow. Oh, but on the contrary, apparently, it was his group's aim to build "an international movement for working class solidarity".
I laughed out loud. "How are you going to do that," I asked, "when right here in Glasgow, we have the Scottish Socialist Party, who are now split right down the middle, and screaming hatred at each other. If they can't keep it together in Glasgow, how are you going to keep it together worldwide?" He didn't have much to say to that!
THE MARXIST BOGUS "GREENS"
The Leftist and Marxist "Greens" will point out that it is capitalism which drives immigration pressures.
Like all Marxists they will trace whatever it is they claim to be concerned about, to the economic system. They will try to claim that ecological crises are a product of social causes which themselves are products of the capitalist system and its injustices.
Of course, the economic system is often a factor, and one can recognize that without having to be a Marxist!
However, these people are Bogus Greens because the bottom line for them is not ecological sustainability, but like all other Leftists, the bottom line is their fundamentalist religion of "equality" which drives them on destructive routes.
Even if we work sincerely to correct the economic problems of which they complain, even if we work to ensure people want to stay where they are rather than migrate, even if the economics is changed for the better, they would still support ecologically damaging open borders and unlimited immigration -- in the name of equality!
In this regard, compare the difference between genuine ecologically-aware advocacy, as found in Sovereignty with that of the Marxist Bogus "Greens":
Sovereignty challenges neo-liberalism. We campaign for economic justice for all. To those ends, we advocate building Self Reliance Worldwide (see for example, The Principles and Purposes of Foreign Aid, and Appendix to our Asylum Policy, we support the Cancellation of Third World Debt and we advocate thoroughly throughout this website, the economics of Localism not Globalism.
At the same time we advocate restricting immigration and asylum levels severely, and enforcing the immigration laws. We campaign for ecological sustainability and emphasise its central relevance to the issue of migration.
Marxist Bogus "Greens" on the other hand, put freedom of movement above economic justice and ecological sustainability because they are fixated on their religion of "equality" in every field of human life.
This ideology demands that there must be no laws which "discriminate" in any way towards any particular person for any reason whatsoever. Thus, immigration laws are inherently anti-equality and "racist" and must be torn down and there must be open-borders.
Moreover, they try to justify this in economic terms because they believe that freedom of movement is a necessary tool to achieve their economic goals in the first place.
They believe that only when we can all move about unimpeded will the world economy stabilise at a level which is the same for all. Only then, as a result of this economic equality will the social problems caused by inequality be sorted and ecological sustainability achieved.
Of course, in reality this free movement of people will be politically, socially, economically and ecologically damaging and unjust to many areas and peoples of the planet -- but that is of little concern to them.
The Marxist Bogus "Greens" will destroy the planet in their efforts to achieve "equality".
This article was published originally in the September 2006 issue of Sovereignty.
http://sovereignty.org.UK/
________________________________________
There were fears of a new wave of clandestine migrants from eastern Europe last night after Poland announced it is opening its doors to workers from outside the EU.
In an attempt to ease labour shortages, people from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus will no longer need work permits to enter the country.
With thousands of its citizens flocking to the UK, Poland finds itself short of skilled workers.
(Unaccredited, "Poland in new migrant alert",
The Scottish Daily Mail, 2-9-06, p.55)
Irony of ironies! Poland is short of skilled workers because they're all flocking to Britain because, allegedly, we're short of skilled workers!
Such is the absurdity of neo-liberalism -- the term which has come to refer to minimum government intervention in the economy, or government intervention intended to ensure complete freedom of movement of capital and labour.
This article demonstrates that neo-liberalism is upheld by those on the Left as well as those on the Right.
On the question of free movement of labour, the free-marketeers and capitalists on the Right meet the anti-capitalists and anarchists on the Left in complete agreement.
The reason the free-marketeers uphold a central pillar of neo-liberalism -- free movement of people - is their desire to make a lot of money.
The free-marketeers cannot speak out against free movement of labour because that would require them to re-assess their commitment to free movement of capital.
It's unfortunate that some anti-EU groups simplistically advocate "free trade" without thinking it through properly and realising that the full implications may often be the antithesis of their professed belief in national sovereignty, both political and economic. After all, even if we left the EU, cheap labour would still come here, unless there were restrictions set on this particular aspect of "free trade."
The reason the anti-capitalists uphold a central pillar of neo-liberalism -- free movement of people - is their desire to promote "equality".
In this regard, the Left emphasise "international workers' solidarity". This can often be a very good idea.
CONSTRUCTIVE SOLIDARITY and POLITICALLY PERVERSE "SOLIDARITY"
For example, I realise that if my job is shipped to Mexico, the Mexican worker will probably have a pretty crummy job working for low-wages in poor conditions.
I can accept that the system is screwing us both.
We all benefit when living standards and working conditions rise in other countries. It means there is less chance of an employer in this country bailing out and going abroad to exploit cheap labour and poor working conditions, and there will be less of a migration push from these countries.
I can understand that if I can help the Mexican build a better economic system for his own country, then maybe in time there will be less incentive for the system to ship my next job out there, or to force his family over here.
In this sense, solidarity with workers internationally is an appropriate and fine thing, to be encouraged. Sovereignty carries a slogan on its back page, with every issue, which advocates "Solidarity with Farmers Internationally."
However, the idea of "solidarity" becomes a very bad thing if it is misused as a rhetorical device to neuter my opposition to having my living space invaded, or my work and wages undermined, or my environment destroyed, or when I'm expected to condone unlawful behaviour in its name.
For example, when we're expected to show "solidarity" with the massive influx of immigrants, especially the illegal ones -- which the Left like to call "irregular" -- and bogus asylum seekers, and to put from our minds the political, social, economic and ecological consequences of this immigration invasion -- for the greater notion of "solidarity".
In that sense, "solidarity" is simply a slogan being used to undermine my rights and to prevent me articulating them and to stop me standing up for myself, and my group's interests. It is in this politically perverted sense that the Left today almost always use the term.
THE DRIVING IDEOLOGY OF "EQUALITY"
Why do the Left insist on doing this?
Why do they seek to geld opposition to neo-liberalism from the working class by misusing the idea of "international solidarity" when it is not appropriate to the circumstances, nor the interests, of the people to whom they are speaking?
The reason is because the Left's over-arching ideology of "equality" demands that they put "equality for all" before the interests of any specific element of the working class.
Therefore, if working class people in England are being displaced from apprenticeships, or jobs, by already qualified Eastern Europeans, or Somali refugees, then the Leftist will not stand up for the English indigenous working class because his doctrine of "equality" mandates that he cannot and must not "discriminate" between people in any way.
Therefore, he will argue that the Somali has a right to this job too and that the Englishman needs to see himself, not as part of a national citizenry, but rather as part of an amorphous "international working class" in which he is "equal" with this Somali and shares "solidarity" with this Somali "working class person". Viewed this way, the Englishman can only lose.
To promote "equality", the Englishman is expected to deny his interests, forfeit his rights and cede his space in the name of "solidarity" with someone he's never met, who is likely not a citizen, and is probably a law-breaker!
As a consequence of its ideological obsession with "equality", the Left cannot and will not oppose free movement of labour and so it must try deliberately to pervert and misuse the idea of solidarity in order to neuter any working class opposition to the open-borders of neo-liberalism.
The Left's obsession with "solidarity" can sometimes have its amusing manifestations.
I had a conversation with a Lefty in Buchanan Street this month. He was standing beside a stall and wanted me to sign a petition showing "solidarity" with some Cubans who, for reasons he was not able to explain clearly, had been thrown in jail in Miami!
Faintly amused, I smiled and said I didn't think that was of much relevance to people in Glasgow. Oh, but on the contrary, apparently, it was his group's aim to build "an international movement for working class solidarity".
I laughed out loud. "How are you going to do that," I asked, "when right here in Glasgow, we have the Scottish Socialist Party, who are now split right down the middle, and screaming hatred at each other. If they can't keep it together in Glasgow, how are you going to keep it together worldwide?" He didn't have much to say to that!
THE MARXIST BOGUS "GREENS"
The Leftist and Marxist "Greens" will point out that it is capitalism which drives immigration pressures.
Like all Marxists they will trace whatever it is they claim to be concerned about, to the economic system. They will try to claim that ecological crises are a product of social causes which themselves are products of the capitalist system and its injustices.
Of course, the economic system is often a factor, and one can recognize that without having to be a Marxist!
However, these people are Bogus Greens because the bottom line for them is not ecological sustainability, but like all other Leftists, the bottom line is their fundamentalist religion of "equality" which drives them on destructive routes.
Even if we work sincerely to correct the economic problems of which they complain, even if we work to ensure people want to stay where they are rather than migrate, even if the economics is changed for the better, they would still support ecologically damaging open borders and unlimited immigration -- in the name of equality!
In this regard, compare the difference between genuine ecologically-aware advocacy, as found in Sovereignty with that of the Marxist Bogus "Greens":
Sovereignty challenges neo-liberalism. We campaign for economic justice for all. To those ends, we advocate building Self Reliance Worldwide (see for example, The Principles and Purposes of Foreign Aid, and Appendix to our Asylum Policy, we support the Cancellation of Third World Debt and we advocate thoroughly throughout this website, the economics of Localism not Globalism.
At the same time we advocate restricting immigration and asylum levels severely, and enforcing the immigration laws. We campaign for ecological sustainability and emphasise its central relevance to the issue of migration.
Marxist Bogus "Greens" on the other hand, put freedom of movement above economic justice and ecological sustainability because they are fixated on their religion of "equality" in every field of human life.
This ideology demands that there must be no laws which "discriminate" in any way towards any particular person for any reason whatsoever. Thus, immigration laws are inherently anti-equality and "racist" and must be torn down and there must be open-borders.
Moreover, they try to justify this in economic terms because they believe that freedom of movement is a necessary tool to achieve their economic goals in the first place.
They believe that only when we can all move about unimpeded will the world economy stabilise at a level which is the same for all. Only then, as a result of this economic equality will the social problems caused by inequality be sorted and ecological sustainability achieved.
Of course, in reality this free movement of people will be politically, socially, economically and ecologically damaging and unjust to many areas and peoples of the planet -- but that is of little concern to them.
The Marxist Bogus "Greens" will destroy the planet in their efforts to achieve "equality".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
