Posts Tagged ‘ecofascism’

Preventing extremism: Why stop European jihadists from going to Syria?

June 8, 2014

The Financial Times (paywalled) reports that “Western intelligence agencies have handed Turkish authorities the names of nearly 5,000 people they fear are attempting to travel to Syria to join al-Qaeda linked groups, in a stark illustration of the escalating terror threat posed by homegrown jihadis”.

Turkey has already deported between 1,000 and 2,000 “jihadists” back to their home countries in Europe where they then become a virulent threat.

DailyBeast: It is a scenario that counter-terrorism experts have been warning about for the past two years: a European citizen who travelled to Syria in order to join up with jihadist groups returns to Europe in order to carry out a terrorist attack. It is something we all knew eventually would become a reality and, more worryingly, knew we could not prevent.

“Moderate Islam” in European countries is conspicuous by its complete absence in holding back the extremists and the idiot fanatics. I have no doubt that most Muslims are moderate. But they have been too passive for far too long against their own extremists.  In Europe, in Africa and even in China. They have – for example – allowed the extremists to take over parts of the school system in Birmingham in the UK. But it is not just “moderate Islam” which has abdicated its responsibilities. The political establishment in Europe (mainly) has to take its share of the blame. Political correctness in Europe involves allowing all fanatics and extremists – whether from the neo-Nazis as in Ukraine or Greece or from the religious Islamic fanatics in France and the UK or from the ecofascism of the hard-left green activists – to flourish unchecked.

But I wonder why the intelligence agencies don’t just let these jihadists reach Syria? Why warn Turkey and then have them all deported back to carry out their mayhem? If the US could revoke Snowden’s passport while he was travelling, surely it would be most effective for the US and EU countries to merely revoke those of the 5,000 known to be on their way to Syria? And concentrate on preventing their return? Like it or not, in the current situation Bashar al-Assad could be best equipped to handle these fanatics.

In the long run of course the alienated youth who are then radicalised have to be addressed at home. And the best bet is if “moderate Islam” is encouraged to defuse and neutralise their idiot fanatics. The position of the political centre defines the extremes. A passive centre allows the political spectrum to be skewed towards one extreme or the other or even to reach a bifurcation. The way to prevent unacceptable extremism lies then, I think, not in trying to prevent the extreme views from forming (which is futile) but in having a sufficiently pro-active centre which effectively starves the extremists of recruits.

Advertisements

Global warming paper withdrawn for being “false and impossible”

January 20, 2011

Global warming enthusiasts are getting desperate it would seem. Perhaps they are disturbed by their crumbling credibility as the entire faith is being debunked. Polar bears are thriving and the Sun is very quiet and we are in for 20 or 30 years of a cooling trend and the effect of man-made CO2 having any significant effect on warming is looking more and more implausible. Catastrophe claims are being exaggerated to the level of the impossible and draconian measures are being called for. The global warming crowd are sounding more like eco-fascists whose creed is that discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” are the only solution.

On the one hand we have one of the high priests of the global warming faith (NASA’s James Hansen) calling for authoritarian measures a la China to enforce de-carbonisation – http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/hansen-us-democracy-not-competent-to-deal-with-global-warming-calls-on-communist-china-to-save-humanity/

The NASA scientist at the heart of the global warming fiasco seems set to stir more controversy after declaring in an op ed piece for The South China Morning Post and a personally published follow-up that American democracy is not competent to deal with global warming, and communist China now represents the world’s “best hope”.

In the op ed piece for the Chinese newspaper, which he entitled Chinese Leadership Needed to Save Humanity (published as The Price of Change) Hansen placed the blame for the vast majority of Co2 emissions supposedly causing global warming on his home country of America, and appealed to China not to follow the same path. Hansen said that China was the world’s “best hope” and called for them to “lead the world through the most dangerous crisis that humanity and nature have ever faced”.

In a follow-up article published on his website Hansen calls Americans “barbarians” and slams American democracy, calling for China to raise tariffs on American-made products until such time as America falls into line. …….

Hansen goes on to condemn the current democratic system in America as “dysfunctional” as it will not enact the carbon taxes he has been calling for. All is not lost, though, as he advises the Chinese government what to do about Congress in a truly incredible passage in his letter:

“However, there is a way around that, which becomes obvious with the realization that an initially modest carbon fee is in China’s own interest. After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal carbon fee or tax.

The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil fuel addiction with a rising carbon fee and supportive national investment policies or it could accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being”.

And now we have Canadian TV revealing that

“A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible”.

The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that’s followed by many journalists.

The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study’s claims were erroneous. …… The correction came after The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. published a reaction piece to the study. The paper said it had interviewed climate scientists who told them that rapid global warming at the rates projected by the study was impossible.

“2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.

According to The Guardian, the study’s lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF’s executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.

The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study’s conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.

“EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011,” the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.

  1. It should be noted that the Universal Ecological Fund is just another lobby group, and
  2. that “the Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani” who supervised this work got his much-maligned Peace Nobel as part of the IPCC for lobbying activities and not for any scientific endeavour, and
  3. the paper seems to have received little or no competent scientific review before being published by EurekAlert

The 10:10 video and ecofascism

October 2, 2010

I find the entire 10.10 campaign infantile but still feel I have to address their (at best) stupid video.

That this puerile video was castigated soundly (as for example at WUWT) is only right and proper. That infantile humour – when indulged in by infants – has a place in comedy is not in doubt. But what is much more disturbing in my opinion is that in this case – and in these times – it is being used to cloak the message that terror and mayhem and execution are acceptable to eliminate dissent.

The apology by the 10.10 campaign is not much of an apology and is more in the way of an attack on those who did not find it funny Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t …”. They continue that “We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet”.

No? Presumably because they feel their message is fundamentally sound — it is just that the “some” who didn’t find it funny are reacting disproportionately !

The campaign denied that the withdrawal was planned from the beginning as a publicity stunt. I also found Monty Python and Blackadder extremely funny but this is something entirely different. This video is insidious in that it supports the creation of an atmosphere in which the ecofascism creed can flourish under the cloak of “humour”:

An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth and therefore discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression must be used on dissenters. They must be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags or eliminated. The sole glimmer of hope lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.

The video is puerile — but so is the entire juvenile, misguided and meaningless 10:10 campaign which seems to be little more than an easy, painless way for “privileged brats” to salve their consciences.

Low carbon meals

Ecofascism – the new shameful face of environmentalism

September 18, 2010

The Guardian (Micah White) gives a lot of space to effectively promoting the views of a self-styled “ecofascist”.

Micah White

Anti-consumerist and ecofascist Micah White

Micah White is a self-styled activist who clearly supports the suspension of democracies and the introduction of an “authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers”. That the Guardian would give so much space to ranting of this kind is not very surprising but is irresponsible. Apologists for fascists and terrorists – even by adding the prefix “eco” – remain apologists for fascists and terrorists.

Pentti Linkola, a Finnish fisherman and ecological philosopher. Whereas Lovelock puts his faith in advanced technology, Linkola proposes a turn to fascistic primitivism. Their only point of agreement is on the need to suspend democracy. Linkola has built an environmentalist following by calling for an authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers.

Pentti Linkola, pensive

Ecofascist Pentti Linkola

Largely unknown outside of Finland until the first English translation of his work was published last year, Linkola represents environmentalism pushed to its totalitarian extreme. “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth,” he writes concluding several pages later that “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” are the only solution.

Linkola has a cunning ability to blend reasonable ecological precepts with shocking authoritarian solutions. His bold political programme includes ending the freedom to procreate, abolishing fossil fuels, revoking all international trade agreements, banning air traffic, demolishing the suburbs, and reforesting parking lots. As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags: “the sole glimmer of hope,” he declares, “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.”


%d bloggers like this: