Loony Greens Demand Meat Tax

Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas poses for a photograph with a green question mark outside the entrance to Downing Street in central London on May 30, 2017, during a general election campaign event to highlight the lack of debate by other political parties on environmental issues, as campaigning continues in …

Audio version.

Loony Greens, led by their only MP Caroline Lucas, are campaigning to impose a meat tax on the UK. Because climate change — or some such nonsense.

Lucas, a sort of demonic pixie-creature spawned by Mother Gaia with the sole purpose of enabling the rich bunny-huggers and tofu-munchers in her expensive but super-woke Brighton constituency to parade their green virtue and annoy the rest of the country, also thinks that bacon and sausages are destroying lives and killing the National Health Service and that only higher taxes can save us.

As she argues in the leftist New Statesman:

“Experts […] found the price of bacon and sausages would have to increase by 80 per cent to cover their cost to our NHS and save nearly 6,000 lives a year.”

She was also given space to speak at a farming conference, of all places.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

The BBC and Britain’s MPs Confront the Grooming Gang Issue – ‘Ooh Look! A Squirrel!’


Why is the BBC proving so reluctant to report on the horrific story of the 1000 young girls who, over a period of 40 years, have been groomed, drugged, serially raped and sometimes murdered by predominantly Muslim gangs in Telford, Shropshire?

Possibly for the same reason that so much of the UK media is now giving such prominence to the poisoning of Russian ex-double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, presumably on the orders of Vladimir Putin.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Heathrow Airport Climate Protesters Are Going to Jail. Good

Oh how the heart bleeds!

According to a small group of green protesters who have gathered outside the magistrates court this represents a terrible travesty of justice. Apparently this will be the first time in the UK anyone has ever been jailed for protesting about climate change.

“A disgrace” says (terrorist-supporting, hard-left) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

“Deeply unjust” says Green MP Caroline Lucas.

No, Caroline, love, what’s really unjust is this: thousands of holidaymakers and business travellers making their way to the airport to catch planes only to miss their flights because a bunch of spoiled trustafarians, unemployable Environmental Sciences graduates and professional wasters have gone and cut through the perimeter fence and lain down on the runway.

One of the idiots – it goes almost without saying – was dressed as a polar bear.

Another of the idiots – again, it almost goes without saying – holds a PhD in climate science from the University of East Anglia (aka the University of Easy Access). And guess who her course supervisor was (h/t Paul Matthews at Bishop Hill). Why – the story gets better and better – it was none other than Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the Climatic Research Unit, as featured so unimpressively in the Climategate emails.

Nobody is suggesting that dressing up as a polar bear or studying Environmental Sciences under Phil Jones ought to be punishable by imprisonment. (Though I don’t think it would do any harm if a few of us wrote to the Home Secretary urging the law to be tightened up in this regard).

But only an utter loon would argue that the right to free protest extended to being given a free pass to ruin people’s holidays, disrupt their business meetings, jeopardise security and cause millions and millions of pounds of economic damage.

This is what is so reprehensible and unjust about so many of the previous decisions made by the courts on environmental issues. The Kingsnorth power station protest, for example.

Kingsnorth was the case in 2008 when a group of Greenpeace protesters successfully defended themselves against a charge of criminal damage (£30,000 worth to a power station chimney) by pleading “climate change” as their “lawful excuse.”

The court had heard from Professor Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate change campaigner, told the court that humanity was in “grave peril”. “Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”

It also heard David Cameron’s environment adviser, millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, and an Inuit leader from Greenland both say climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world. Goldsmith told the court: “By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder [to exert] pressure on countries like China and India” to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel.

The court was told that some of the property in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China’s Yellow River region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that there were advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo peninsula.

Amazingly, the judge was swayed by this pseudo-scientific guff.

But that was eight years ago, at the height of the green scare. The judge in the #heathrow13 case appears to be made of more robust stuff.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Yes the Greens Are a Joke – But Not a Funny or a Harmless One

Many years ago, when I was a young diarist working for the Daily Telegraph’s Peterborough column, my bosses dispatched me to cover the Green Party conference. This wasn’t because I was particularly anti-Green at the time. Rather it was because, of all Peterborough’s staffers, I was known to be the one least interested in politics and the political process, so it seemed entirely appropriate to send me to the big joke event in the conference season, rather than to one of the more serious events.

The only thing I remember about the event was being inveigled into some fringe activity in which I was forced to participate with various Green delegates in some kind of non-competitive group bonding exercise where we all had to roll about on the floor. Someone let out the most repellent fart. It smelt evil but everyone present politely conspired to pretend that everything was normal. I sense something similar going on right now in the collective efforts of the media chattering classes to present the Green Party as a viable, vibrant and credible force in UK politics in the approach to the General Election.

Here are some reasons why I think they are wrong.

1. Green Party membership is on the up and up. Yes but so what?

Apparently the Green Party’s membership has now overtaken UKIP’s. I’m quite prepared to believe this but I think it says more about the fiendish zealotry of the sort of people attracted to environmental causes than it does about the Green Party itself. It’s not as though the Green Party has suddenly gone and recruited a brilliant, inspirational go-ahead new leader – au contraire: see Nathalie Bennett, below – nor as though it has undergone some manner of dramatic, Clause 4 style, policy reinvention.

Nope. It’s just that of all the parties, the Greens are the one whose target market accords most closely with the kind of people who flock to sign Change.Org petitions and join Twitter mobbings and go out on street demos (or better still, attend week-long protest camps where they can smoke dope, get to use the yurt and possibly get to rub shoulders with Vivienne Westwood). These people are signers, joiners, astroturfers. As a percentage of the population they are quite small but in terms of exerting political pressure they punch far above their weight by being highly committed and – for a bunch of dope-smoking crusties – surprisingly well organised. This Green Party membership surge is just another part of that strategy. I don’t believe that it will translate into anything significant at the polls.

2. Natalie Bennett

You know how at the beginning of each new primary school year there are one or two teachers you pray aren’t going to be the ones to whose class your children have been allocated? And it’s not that these teachers are malign, necessarily. It’s just that they’re wet, agonisingly prey to all the usual PC groupthink and frankly a bit thick – so, while you know your kids won’t necessarily be unhappy during their year with Ms X, they’re not going to learn anything  more useful than how to colour in a picture of Mary Seacole for their Black History Week project. Well I’ve met the Green Party’s leader Natalie Bennett and I’m afraid she’s one of those.

3. Watermelons

It stands, of course, for “green on the outside, red on the inside”. But as Matthew Holehouse rightly notes in this analysis of the Green Party’s policies, that doesn’t mean they’re as bad as Karl Marx whose main concern was the way wealth was distributed. No – and this really can’t be pointed out often enough – the Greens are much more dangerous than Karl Marx, because though they share his attitude to redistributionism they are also ideologically opposed to the one thing capable of offering each generation a better standard of living than the previous one: economic growth. A vote for the Greens is far more than a protest: it’s a vote for collectivisation, stagnation and immiseration.

4. They’re worse than a joke

Ohohoho yes, the Greens. When I originally started writing this piece, I couched it in flippantly humorous terms, with jokes about a world where your house would get confiscated and handed over to a bunch of crusties, with your garden shed being allocated for dogs-on-ropes they use for their street begging ventures and the suggestion that it would be like living under Enver Hoxha only with more dreadlocks, juggling and pois (Young Poi-oneers, anyone?).

Truth is, though, to laugh at the Greens is to underestimate the viciousness of their ideology – which is an unholy mix of economic illiteracy, pathological altruism, and misanthropy, built on a foundation of ignorance, self-delusion and mendacity. These people aren’t just misguided fools. The policies for which they have agitated over the years – punching far above their weight (see 1) – have caused the world and its inhabitants real harm. For the full ugly details read this damning new report by Andrew Montford for the Global Warming Policy Foundation called Unintended Consequences Of Climate Change Policy. These caring, nurturing hippies have blood on their hands. They should be ashamed of themselves and certainly have no place on the moral high ground.

5. In office they’re a disaster

As witness the hell they inflicted on the Green Republic of Brighton and Hove. It’s redolent of the loony left councils which ran various London boroughs in the 1980s, only with added eco-worthiness. So: out-of-control spending and uncollected rubbish, but with added nonsense like proposals that everyone should experience meat-free Mondays.

6. What all this is really all about, of course, is UKIP

The reason the “rise of the Greens” is getting so much enthusiastic coverage is because the mainstream media appears to have decided en masse that anything is better than UKIP, even a party which, if it got anywhere near the reins of power would bomb the UK economy back to the Dark Ages. An unfortunate side-effect of this shameless bias towards Cameron’s Conservatives (who, of course, fear and loathe UKIP far more than they do Labour) is that it means few journalists, commentators and broadcasters are subjecting the Greens to any kind of serious scrutiny. If UKIP had a single policy half as lunatic as the ones the Greens have got, it would be front page news for the next four months.

From Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Greens sacrifice babies to Satan, sell grandmothers into slavery, etc
  2. Frogs, scorpions, greens, lies…
  3. Richard Curtis’s snuff movie: A joke? A canny marketing strategy? I don’t think so.
  4. Peak oil really could destroy the economy – just not in the way greens think


Green MP Caroline Lucas Tries to Keep Science out of Climate Science

August 1, 2014

Green MP Caroline Lucas has written to Labour leader Ed Miliband to protest that one of his MPs, Graham Stringer, has been telling the truth about climate change.

The letter, an apparent attempt to get Stringer sacked from his position on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, begins:

I’m writing with regard to yesterday’s report from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on climate science and the 5th assessment report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I’m sure that we will both welcome the Committee’s unambiguous endorsement of the integrity of the science and the compelling case for urgent action to cut carbon emissions and secure a global climate deal.

However, in light of your criticism of the Prime Minister for having climate deniers in his Cabinet, and your comments about the harm caused to our country by delay and dither on climate change, it was especially disappointing to see Graham Stringer, a senior Labour MP, join forces with Conservative MP Peter Lilley in an attempt to undermine the findings.

As Caroline Lucas should know – she’s an English Literature graduate – this is a wonderful example of irony.

Read more at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…
  2. ‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report
  3. Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires
  4. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all


There Is Nothing ‘Smart’ about Rationing Electricity

Heading for the Dark Ages

Cartoon by Josh

Cartoon by Josh

Tonight on Channel 4 Niall Ferguson will be explaining why Western Civilisation is on its last legs. The reason for this is very simple: we no longer understand or value our civilisation; indeed many of us feel rather embarrassed about it. We have been taught to view all our great historical achievements through a filter of post-colonial guilt; we have learned the weasel art of cultural relativism where, in their own special way, cultures that practise female circumcision and bury homosexuals under walls are just as vibrant, valid and meaningful as the one that gave us Michelangelo, penicillin and the splitting of the atom; weve been persuaded that elitism and authority are undesirable (cf Jamies Dream School); weve bought heavily into the fashionable meme that mankind is a cancer on the earth and that the proper thing to do is abandon progress, destroy our economies, limit population growth and try to recapture an agrarian idyll which of course never existed except in the imaginations of pastoral poets and the Prince of Wales.

The last part is the theme of my book Watermelons. Though I say it myself it couldnt be coming out at a more desperate time. To show how desperate, let us consider the words of Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid, interviewed last week on BBC Radio 4s Today programme.

The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030. We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that. We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.

I have one simple question here: what on earth is this imbecile still doing in his job?

Obviously, one might except this kind of inanity from Green MP Caroline Lucas. She is, after all, the leader of a party ideologically committed in its manifesto to raising taxes, destroying economic growth and restricting personal freedoms.

National Grid, on the other hand, is the organisation which distributes Britains power supplies. Not just the power supplies of the kind of hairshirt loons who believe there must be limits to growth and that the answer is therefore to deny our children an economic future, raise taxes and force us to use crappy, flickery yellow lightbulbs and get used to our rubbish being collected once a fortnight no matter how much we pay in council tax. But also the power supplies of the rest of us that is, most of us who just want to get on with living our lives, paying the rent, making the most of our short span on this earth, and enjoying our hot showers and baths as and when we choose rather than when some eco-fascist busybody tell us its permitted.

Note Steve Hollidays wonderfully creative use of the word smarter. In the old days, it used to mean positive things like more intelligent, better dressed, sharper, quicker, wittier. In Hollidays Newspeak, however, it means rationed according to the whims of Big Brother.

As we have seen before, there are elements in the Green movement who actively want to revive wartime-style rationing and who welcome shortages and inconvenience, because they believe this is the price we must pay for Saving The Planet.

What is a matter of the direst concern is when such a fringe mentality becomes part of the political and economic mainstream.

Rationing our energy supplies it is not progress. It is a step back quite literally towards the Dark Ages.

Related posts:

  1. UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy
  2. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  3. Why on earth shouldn’t hotel owners be free to turn away gay couples?
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!

17 thoughts on “There is nothing ‘smart’ about rationing electricity”

  1. JimmyGiro says:7th March 2011 at 3:11 amDamn, Niall Ferguson, makes me wish I had a TV. I hope they put it up on 4 OD, on YouTube.
  2. Chris P says:7th March 2011 at 6:13 amRevealing once again that James has no clue about mathematics and science.

    He is clueless about exponential growth and doesn’t understand that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. He’d do well as a republican in the US because it requires ignorance to be one.

    We evolved to be selfish – just like James. Unfortunately it doesn’t work when demand is greater than supply.

    So “There is nothing “smart” about james ”

    (Smacks head on table)

  3. Nige Cook says:7th March 2011 at 9:04 amChris: exponential growth applies to both population and resources. The extra population is an extra resource, so there is no problem. It’s only when you falsely claim (as Mathus did and later the Club of Rome in 1972) that population rises exponentially but food production increases linearly, that you can make doomsday predictions! The use of agent orange in Vietnam led pushed environmentalism on to the political agenda, such as the 1972 film Silent Running about the preservation of Earth’s forests in a spaceship, to allow reforestation of the planet after environmental catastrophe:

    Silent Running: Science-Fiction Story With Cheerful Robots
    New York Times, April 1, 1972

    The year is 2008, sometime after the earth has been defoliated, its valleys filled in and its mountains leveled, when it’s 75° everywhere from Murmansk to Tanzania, and when everyone has a job. It is, in short, hell, at least to Freeman Lowell, the chief astro-botanist on the American Airlines space freighter Valley Forge, one of three space freighters cruising like arks in the vicinity of Saturn. The ships are a task force of giant greenhouses in which earth’s vanished plant life is being preserved until the day of refoliation.


    In 1974, the Club of Rome published its second report, Mankind at the Turning Point: “the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, over population, food shortages, non-renewable resource depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance.” It concluded: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
    The delusion in the computer program (used to obfuscate the errors), was the old one by Mathus: using an exponentially rising population but a more slowly rising rate of resources and food production! This was pointed out by Dr Allen Kneese and Dr Ronald Riker and reported in Newsweek, 13 March 1972, page 103.

    Wartime style rationing would be ideal for our present recession and debt problems: we need to bring back rationing because consumer debt (not just national debt from Brown and Blair) is out of control, people are unhealthy, drinking too much alcohol and flooding the NHS with unnecessary drunk accident time-wasters making some genuinely sick people wait forever or even give up trying to get treatment. We need not prohibition, but rationing of alcohol consumption, tobacco consumption, food consumption, and expensive imported goods that increase our trade deficit and make us poorer. There should be no rationing of British made goods, apart from unhealthy foods and alcohol. This will boost the British economy because people will be encouraged to buy unrationed British-made goods more, not save up ten years of ration coupons to enable them to buy imported cars. Obviously, rationing needs to be accompanied by strict deterrence of ration coupon racketeering, e.g. by using computerised finger print ID systems to verify ration coupon ownership.

  4. Martin Lack says:7th March 2011 at 9:37 amDid you actually watch the programme, James? I thought it was very good; although I must have missed the bit you were talking about because the programme I saw (from 10 minutes in) was all about how we narrowly avoided all speaking Chinese because of the death of a Ming Emperor with a penchant for exploration. Thus the Chinese became insulationist and shunned outsiders (a state from which they are only now emerging). The other reason I found this interesting is because I am currently studying the Environmental Politics and Policy of China and India and, in this respect, a few things are worth noting:
    1. As aluded to by Ferguson, as a result of the Opium Wars more than anything else, 20th Century China was very anti-Western in outlook and certainly wouldn’t do anything becasue we told them too.
    2. Neverthless, in 1972 they joined the UN and thus began the end of their isolationism.
    3. My 1989, they had a whole raft of Environmental Legislation on the go (but only because they saw the need for it – not because we forced it on them).
    4. By 2007, they had publicly admitted to their own people and the outside world that “development first, environment second” was no good.
    5. China is now actively pursuing policies to mitigate pollution and climate change becuase it has calculated (by and for itself) that it will suffer if it does not. To repeat, as is evidenced by its brinkmanship within the UNFCCC process, China is not doing anything because we in the West want it to, it is acting purely in its own self interest.
    It is time that the fossil fuel lobby stopped funding the “debate” over climate change; prefereably without being taken to court like the tobacco executives were over perpetuating the “debate” over whether smoking causes lung cancer for 50 years. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has been happening (w.r.t. AGW) for at least 30 years already…
  5. Martin Lack says:7th March 2011 at 10:33 amNige, for once I think you have produced a relevant quote: “…the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as over population, food shortages, non-renewable resource depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance…” (Club of Rome, 1974). Was the rest of your post intended as sarcasm/irony (as it appears to be an attempted parody of an Orwellian dystopia)?

    However, returning to the Club of Rome, the subsequent reports produced by the Meadows et al team at the MIT have validated their World3 model; as do the recent hikes in food and fuel prices and political instability that we are now seeing. Indeed, as Meadows et al repeated most recently in Limits to Growth – the 30 year update, the world is indeed beginning to run out of the “ability to cope” with what we are doing to the planet (p.223). Therefore, we would do well to live within the Earth’s means (not just our own); and remember that, as Herman E. Daly once remarked, the world may be developing; but it is not growing!

  6. joecool says:7th March 2011 at 6:24 pmI can think of few things more distasteful than having the hand of a bureaucrat on my electrical power! When he shuts mine off, I want his to go off, too, but I’m betting that won’t happen!
  7. The Un Opinion says:7th March 2011 at 9:45 pmI love how you get under these guys skin ! As in life, the people who react the most are those most insecure about their own opinions. Otherwise they would just get on with their business regardless of what you say. Keep up the good work … “Don’t tread on me !!”
  8. JimmyGiro says:7th March 2011 at 11:40 pm@ The Un Opinion,

    Opinions may not change our livelihoods, but government policy is designed to.

  9. Martin Lack says:8th March 2011 at 11:41 amAccording to Nige, “exponential growth applies to both population and resources [and] extra population is an extra resource“. These are such a catastrophically stupid statements, I can’t believe I overlooked them!

    Population is a drain on resources because the only thing it is good at is depleting and polluitng them (i.e. sources and sinks respectively). Oil production has already peaked; and one day it will run out. The same goes for all of the Earth’s other resources; including uranium for nuclear energy (especially if we continue only to use 2% of what what there is out there).

  10. Nige Cook says:8th March 2011 at 1:47 pm“Population is a drain on resources because the only thing it is good at is depleting and polluitng them (i.e. sources and sinks respectively). Oil production has already peaked; and one day it will run out. The same goes for all of the Earth’s other resources; including uranium for nuclear energy (especially if we continue only to use 2% of what what there is out there).” – Martin Lack

    Martin, your “lebensraum crisis” and “oil crisis” are traditional reasons dictators give for ethnic cleansing and starting wars, yet this population crisis myth was popularized and endorsed by your beloved Monty Python, in their politically-correct, absurd attempted ridicule Catholic Theology (which, as a Catholic myself, I find disgusting). Of course fossil fuels are being depleted and becoming less economic as they are depleted. This naturally forces consumers away from burning fossil fuels, without any need for carbon credit schemes and increased taxes. This is being accelerated by the civil war in Libya, which is has pushed up the cost of crude to $110/barrel. Our government may soon have to face the fact they need to reduce petrol taxes, not increase them! In 1974, the Yom Kippur war between Israel and oil-producing Arab countries pushed oil prices up from $3 to $11/barrel, forcing the British government to cut speed limits to 50 mph to increase fuel efficiency. As oil prices rise, more and more people will end up buying electric hybrid cars, recharging at home, and only using petrol for long journeys or in emergencies when they run out of battery power. There is no need for political action to discourage oil consumption, it’s happening naturally! As for nuclear power, we have immense reserves of Th-232 and U-238, which can be converted into fissile U-233 and Pu-239 by neutron capture in reactors. U-233 and Pu-239 are ideal for very compact, high-efficiency nuclear power supplies. The only hold-up is widespread ignorance of the facts about radiation hormesis.

  11. Martin Lack says:8th March 2011 at 9:19 pmNige,

    Let the record show that it is you that keeps referring to Nazi deology, not me. However, I note that you do not deny that perpetual growth within a closed system is impossible. Stephen Hawking’s solution is, of course, to suggest that within 200 years humanity will colonise space. However, I think the vast majority of planet Earth could be pretty unhospitable (if not uninhabitable) long before then… Therefore, although I do not think population growth is our biggest problem (because it is expected to stabilise at 150% of it current level within 50 years), I must confess that the Catholic Church has been – and remains – one of the biggest obstacles to getting under-developed countries out of their low death rate/high birth rate – perpetual poverty – trap. In the interim, since I am not a eugenics/one child policy/enforced sterilisation supporter, I am forced to pin all my hopes on the education of women; and the acceptance of contraception. Sorry about that.

    The government cannot afford to permanently cut the cost of fuel. If they do anything it will only be a short-term attempt to prevent civil disorder. The cost of fuel must reflect the environmental damage it causes. That is why we must pursue alternative sources. In the interim, I agree that speed limits might well be on the cards again (or were you being sarcastic?).

    The last time I heard of radiation hormesis, it was being put forward as a reason for not acting to control ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere. However, my point was that if we must have nuclear energy, it would make sense to use all the resources we have, which will eventually require the construction of commercial scale Fast Neutron Reactors that can run on Uranium-238 – and all the reprocessed fuel that is knocking about waiting to be stolen by terrorists – none of which can be used in thermal reactors. We already have a massive waste legacy to deal with, so, if we are going to bury it deep underground, we might as well “go large” (as even a small repository will be built entirely at taxpayers expense and cost tens of billions of pounds).

    Can we end this “discussion” here please; as I really need to focus on preparatory stages of my MA dissertation entitled “A Discourse Analysis of Climate Change Scepticism” (whereas, being a mild OCD sufferer, I cannot seem to focus on it at the moment)…? I only mention this so that you will not be offended if – miracle of miracles – I suddenly stop replying (i.e. you have not been part of my research – that would have been unethical and devious).

  12. Nige Cook says:9th March 2011 at 6:48 amMartin: you’re the one referring to Nazi ideology like hot air crises, not me: abusing science to predict a crisis, such claiming population increases faster than resources, is the classic “lebensraum crisis”. Avoiding the word Nazi is an obfuscation when dealing with a Nazi generated pseudoscience that diverts money into carbon credit traders and their investers like green pension fund managers, which during a recession would otherwise be available for genuine efforts to make the world a better place. Most of the nuclear waste is low-level waste (discarded protective clothing, packaging, cleaning fluid, etc.) from large size, low power-density thermal (o.025 eV) neutron reactors. Making use of safe, tiny reactors employing fast (1 MeV) neutrons fissioning Pu-239 or U-233 eliminates this low-level waste problem. Modern technology can eliminate any risk of supercriticality. Past nuclear failures have been due to safety obsessions, lying about Chernobyl’s effects, etc.

    The generation is evil begins with the moral ambiguity of “the ends justify the means”. As soon as you accept that in science, you’re on the road to hell, distorting data to fit a false theory. The pandering to eugenics pseudoscience in the 1930s by appeasers of the Nazi regime was “justified” in the name of preventing overpopulation, ensuring world peace, avoiding another war, etc. It was lies from beginning to end, encouraged racist aggressors, and caused disaster. Apart from eugenics, there was another big lie in science in the 1930s that was supposed to make the world safer. This was exaggeration of weapons effects.

    The British Government before WWII started a scientific quango to predict what aerial bombardment would do, and they decided to exaggerate casualty rate data, leading to a prediction of a million casualties a month. (This is documented in great detail in T. H. O’Brien, Civil Defence, United Kingdom Civil Series, History of the Second World War, HMSO, 1955.) Everyone believed these exaggerations, no questions asked. They believed because they wanted to believe that explosives, incendiaries, weather-dependent gas fallout, etc., would destroy London instantly. But it led Prime Minister Chamberlain to appease Hitler out of fear, encouraging his aggression, thus WWII.

    When you look at the exaggerations, they’re pathetic. In after the first aerial bombing of Britain by airships and Gotha bombers in WWI, the British Government issued a “duck and cover” warming in July 1917 that dramatically cut casualty rates from flying glass to people standing behind windows, and from people being blown over by blast in the open. They ignored post-July 1917 bomb casualty data in the pre-WWII exaggerations.

    The reason they got away with these lies, leading to appeasement of racist aggressors and thus an escalation of aggression followed by WWII, is the widespread belief that it was “safer not to take risks”. Everybody thought it a good idea to exaggerate the scientific facts in the name of peace, prosperity, health and safety. Few wanted to challenge the accuracy of the “scientific” assumptions of scare mongering lies, so even Winston Churchill’s eloquence was unable to sway public opinion in time to avert WWII.

    The lying dogma of climate change, “justified” ultimately not by data by fashionable groupthink pseudo-ethics like weapons effects exaggerations “for peace” before WWII, needs to be debunked. Maybe you could do the debunking in your MA thesis, “A Discourse Analysis of Climate Change Scepticism”?

  13. Martin Lack says:9th March 2011 at 12:38 pmGiven the history of AGW denial – in which Fred Singer played a very prominent and thoroughly discreditable role – I think it is you that will soon exceeding your safe daily calorie limit, simply by having to eat humble pie. See my new blog for context.
  14. Martin Lack says:9th March 2011 at 12:51 pmMy Fred Singer link does’t appear to have worked. Try this URL instead:
  15. Nige Cook says:9th March 2011 at 5:13 pmMartin, just because Churchill sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and Reagan supplied stinger missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan to help them bog down the Soviet Union (encouraging Gorbachev’s change in foreign policy from 1988), this does not taint Churchill and Reagan!

    Just so you grasp the meaning of the sentence above, here it is more plainly: just because oil companies may have funded some pseudoscience claiming to refute CO2 global warming, that does not mean that science-based criticisms of the mechanism and data are all tainted. Churchill was not a communist for collaborating with Stalin against Hitler. He needed all the help he could get. The same for Reagan’s “Rambo III”-style efforts against Soviet foreign policy in Afghanistan, using the Taliban.

    Just because some of the oil companies have taken short-cuts in the past, this does not prove Al Gore correct. You’re just using a strawman argument, which ignores all the strong evidence I gave you (which debunks the data and the mechanism of CO2 warming).

    “[Propaganda is] the art of simplification, constant recapitulation, appealing to the instinctive and the emotional and simply ignoring unpleasant facts.”

    – Dr Joseph Goebbels.

  16. Martin Lack says:9th March 2011 at 5:41 pmThanks for the clarification, Nige. (It was necessary).

    I said I was not going to argue with you anymore; so I won’t.

  17. Frank Tavos says:9th March 2011 at 9:35 pmChalk up another win for Nigel!

Comments are closed.

What Green MP Caroline Lucas Should Know about Liberal Fascism…

Bourgeois eco-fascism on the rise

In today’s Guardian Britain’s first and (thank Gaia!) only Green MP Caroline Lucas tells us that climate change is “one of the greatest threats” to Britain since the Second World War. Her solution is for Britain to “mobilise as a nation in a way we haven’t seen since 1945”.

What this means (as is clear from the new report – entitled The New Home Front – which she launched today at the Imperial War Museum) is government rationing of food and energy, bans on unnecessary journeys, the abolition of property rights, extensive Ministry of Information-style propaganda campaigns and massive wealth re-distribution.

According to Lucas, this will be OK because of the magic it works on social cohesion, just like during the war when we all pulled together.

People put up with so much disruption and deprivation because they knew there was no alternative, and because they believed society would emerge stronger at the end of the war.

Perhaps it’s time Lucas read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, which anatomises this mindset just perfectly.

Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascist movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.

Fascism, Goldberg explains, is not a movement of the political right but of the political left. It is a “religion of the State”.

It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.

Now compare this with what Lucas says in the Guardian today:

Of course, much of what we cover in the report is really the responsibility of government. But it is as if the country’s politicians are scared of their own people. They know that we must act now on climate change, but are frightened to introduce the necessary measures in case it alienates the voters. I hope this report will increase pressure on politicians and reassure them that, once people in Britain understand what needs to be done and are convinced that everyone will be treated fairly, then they will respond with the same creativity and commitment as in the dark days of the war.

She makes it sound as if the public will be allowed to have some choice in the matter. But will they? Try decoding this weasel sentence from the report, produced by the hardcore environmentalist think tank the Tyndall Centre:

The most effective policies and approaches should be re-interpreted for today and built into our programmes with an enabling regulatory environment, targets, timetables and appropriate resources.

Doesn’t sound like a recipe for free markets and freedom of choice, does it?

In fact one of the few things scarier than Lucas’s smiling, Malvern-Girls’-College-educated brand of bourgeois eco-fascism is the sort of person to whom it appeals.

Here is one of them responding at Komment Macht Frei:

Personally i think a nice big nuclear war would rid us of our problems. Most of the human on this planet have no respect for it so i cant say i would miss those who would perish anyway. Let the cockroaches have a go….

And here’s one that proved too much like strong tofu even for the tastes of Komment Macht Frei’s notoriously eco-biased censors: (H/T Henry Brubaker)

As I sit here in Brisbane the bodies of children are, quite literaly, floating down the river outside my flat.
I’ll assume it is only pure ignorance on your part that prevents you from realising just how offensive your climate change denial has become to the millions of people who are, have been, and will become, victims of it.’

‘And perleeese. Don’t further compound your faux pas by trying to claim that “it’s all due to La Nina”. If you tried that here in Brisbane you would get your face smashed in.’

Related posts:

  1. Green MP Caroline Lucas tries to keep science out of climate science
  2. The greatest threat of the 21st century: not AGW but Eco-Fascism
  3. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  4. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy

18 thoughts on “What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism…”

  1. Groper says:23rd January 2011 at 5:21 amBit rich of you to describe everything not remotely extreme rightwing as fascism when liberatrian fascism would have gladly layed the red carpet out for the Schutzstaffel. Drink out of the piss pot of your grandmaster misinformer Goebbels. Heinrich’s rectum cleaner than the surface of a silicon wafer. In fact, you look so much like Himmler he would have graciously taken you on as his favourite grandson. Both of you spectacle chinless wonders could feed off each others’ hate agenda.
  2. Hannam says:23rd January 2011 at 12:14 pmGroper: You are totally insane. Please see a Doctor for your own good. Best wishes.
  3. Chris P says:23rd January 2011 at 4:43 pm“a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)” – definition.

    Delingpole – must be related to Ann Coulter. Is just as clueless and make stupid nasty remarks and gets paid for it.

    What skills do you have apart from writing drivel?

  4. Manuel says:24th January 2011 at 2:00 pmJust trying to translate the previous comments, in the interests of civilised discourse, I presume that Groper and Chris P disagree with your definition of fascism. It’s a little hard to tell. Groper’s argument seems to be that libertarianism would have been as useless as the Weimar constitution was at preventing the rise of the Nazis, before wandering off in some comparison with Nazis, although if anyone can add a verb to the silicon wafer comment it might help.

    Chris P – having read quite a few in-depth studies of the phenomenon (may I rec ommend Roger Griffin’s “Modernism and Fascism”), yours is perhaps the worst definition I’ve seen as it only seems to refer to the structure of government rather than attempt to tackle anything about beliefs; fascism is hardly unique in advocating “authoritarian hierarchical government” now, is it?. I’d suggest that any definition must at least have a reference to the total state control, such as Mussolini’s “nothing outside the State” comment, as well as the notion of rebirth and attaining a break with the past, what Griffin calls a “palingenetic myth” or “Aufbruch”.

    I’d suggest that Delingpole getting paid for “making stupid nasty remarks” is more impressive than you two doing it for nothing.

  5. Daniel says:24th January 2011 at 9:39 pmLol. Just seen you on Horizon. Thank God youre as nutty as TV as you are in print. You came across as a total geek without the ability to process simple arguments. ‘I resent the fact that you know more about this than I do..’ *Loves it* Thank God we wont be seeing you on TV *Dances*
  6. chris says:24th January 2011 at 10:02 pmSorry to change subject but just saw you on Horizon. You did not come over too well. Bad Luck
  7. Paul M says:24th January 2011 at 10:11 pmJust witnessed Delingpole (degree in Eng Lit, not much else) telling Sir Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize winner and a lot more) how science works, with a perfectly straight face. And some say he has lost his sense of humour.
  8. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 10:22 pmGroper

    I see you’ve taken up the socialists usual debating stance: throw emotional shit around because you’re all out of ammo on the actual facts.
    Just for your info fascism is the corrupt partnership of Govt and the big fat corporates. It’s actually what Nu Labour became under Nu Socialists like Blair when they worked out they were total shit at running anything and they needed private expertise.
    So you cannot be a “libitarian fascist” it’s an oxymoron which describes you pretty well too.
    No why don’t you f**k off and find an argument you arse wipe

  9. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 10:30 pmChris P

    When it comes to writing drivel James has a lot to learn from you. That’s because from the day you were born your Union shop steward father (closet Marxist) has taught you not to think but to take up the mantra (bile) of Karl Marx.

    You’ve replaced thinking and listening and learning about how the world works with accepting a century old jealous retarded German twats thinking of how it works. He talked drivel, your father taught you drivel and you talk drivel.

    Zombies R Us (it runs in the retarded socialist family tree)

  10. Velocity says:24th January 2011 at 10:51 pmJames

    Caroline Lucas is a retard and fits in well at that toilet of the country, Westminster.

    I know Danny Boy is friends with this factually dysfunctional incognitively f**ked air headed leftie loon so I don’t want to say anything too harsh against the loony bitch you understand.

    But rarely have i watched a debate where at the start she cried about our melting world drowning in rising sea levels. And at the end said we needed to get the green message across in a less shrill and hysterical way, but more down to earth trying to get across the benefits of changing from private cars to public transport!

    I think she’d had way too many uppers before she got on stage and realising overdosed on downers near the end in the interim completely forgetting her words and that she was coming across as a schizo freak not quite of this planet.

    As i said, should fit in well at Westminster

  11. Groper says:25th January 2011 at 6:19 amThe problem is, I don’t think Velocity or Delingpole know exactly what libertarianism is about. Just their blind loyalty to it. But one thing for sure about libertarianism, is its loathsome attitute to anything left, centrist or mainstream; and its preaching of taking America back to its founding fathers. Just like the Nazi movement’s staunch anti-communist stance and the mission to take Germany back to its traditional roots.

    And funny, perhaps, not so, just so happens it was borne out of the knee jerk reaction to America’s first president of half black decent.

    Libertarianism is fascism… of the Nazi order…

  12. Mike says:25th January 2011 at 9:10 amGet intellectually raped last night, did you?
  13. Groper says:25th January 2011 at 9:28 amManuel, I’m not here to impress you with anything. But the fact that you seem to admit to being impressed by Delingpole’s stupid remarks says a lot about you…
  14. Will says:25th January 2011 at 10:03 amIn last nights Horizon programme Delingpole said he didn’t have time to read scientific papers on climate change. Why not? If he spent half the time learning enough basic science to understand the relevant papers and then reading them as he does slagging off the climate science community – on the basis of second-hand cherry picked and distorted information (and some downright lies) – he could actually end up knowing his bum from a bath towel on the subject. I am ashamed to have attended the same school as this shallow lightweight (though about 20 years earlier)- but then I did study science and not English literature!
  15. Chris P says:25th January 2011 at 4:12 pmVelocity

    My father wasn’t the source of my knowledge or opinion. Seeing how clueless Republicans and libertarians are about science and the environment was the basis for my opinion on those clowns.

    “Fascism” is being used here totally out of context. Liberals are not Mussolini. You know it but want to emulate Limbaugh, Palin, Beck and Coulter. Throwing outrageous snarky remarks around rather than contributing to solutions for the future of the planet.

    It’s all you’ve got.

  16. DoubleU says:25th January 2011 at 7:45 pmJames, check out this video link where a former member of the Obama administration admits environmentalism is about socialism.


  17. D Segal says:25th January 2011 at 10:55 pmOn a couple of side notes:

    1: Your peformance on Horizon last night was less than extrordinary; understand the Peer-Review process and gain some sort of reasonable scientific understanding before you have the audacity to critisise any of it.

    2: Take into account all of the data when examining the issues concerning Global Warming and don’t just cherry-pick data to suite your own ends. A Rank Correlation Coefficient between the percentage of global CO2 levels and average yearly global temperatures will yeild some quite interesting results.

    3: Based on your “About Me” page, you write in meaningless generic buzz words, don’t you?

  18. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 10:33 pmHi D Segal,

    The peer-review process is just just what it says on the label: an old boy’s mutual back-slapping, mutually citing, “I’ll pass your papers if you pass mine” piece of obsolete politics masquerading as science.

    Did you know that Newton’s Principia overthrew the groupthink peer-reviewed orthodoxy of Aristotle, that Darwin’s Origin of Species overthrew orthodox creationism, and that when Einstein first experienced peer-review by the editor of Physical Review in 1936, he immediately replied to the editor that he objected and would never publish there again?

    Do you seriously believe that relativity could ever have been published in a peer-review culture stuck in Maxwell’s mechanical aether?


    I doubt it.

    Kind regards,
    Nige Cook

Comments are closed.