Critical Analysis of an Article of Hate…

… With a heap of bite.

Now, on the off, I know that this won’t interest some of my readers. The few that have been following the whole recent conversation with Pete (comment stream here) are no doubt over the whole thing (honestly Tim! Enough is enough! Can’t you see that you’re talking to a brick wall?). However, he couldn’t help but offer to me an article and after replying to it, I figured that I should submit the article and my response here, as post. Why? Well, those who follow blogs like this know that there is this “raging debate” regarding anthropogenic climate change. Those who follow this blog know that if I stumble across a nonsense writer – such as Nova, Bolt and Laframbiose, I cannot help myself, but to retort. I hate, more than most things, people who have a massive readership and use it to manipulate the ideas of the readers in a way that is contrary to the evidence (or blatant fact). What Pete offered was a piece that obviously hit the right nerves in him. It’s clearly fear-mongering, and I provide it, with my response, for the reader who would like to learn to read grey literature more critically.

‘Sustainable’ Poverty: The Real Face of the Leftist Environmental Agenda
By John Griffing

Since the seventies, the American left has warned of coming famine, overpopulation, total deforestation, urban sprawl, and overcrowding. The only problem is that none of this has ever happened. The left lied, and freedom died.

As a consequence of population hysteria, Western countries have overcorrected, aborting pregnancies and exchanging the cradle for a career. The result? The population of thedeveloped world is now shrinking. The European Union (EU) relies on a steady influx of Muslim immigrants to keep pensions afloat. Forest coverage has actually increased in the United States despite sensationalist warnings.

I like that John target’s Muslim immigration – great to target the xenophobia of endless terrorists. Needless to say, they’re moving because the west have been helping destroy their little desert oasis constantly for the past decade and then numerous other wars over the past 40 odd years.

Forest cover has increased in the US… really? I’d like to see the evidence of this. It’s certainly NOT the case in Aust. and in the UK, well you guys haven’t had much since you started using it for fuel in the beginning of the industrial revolution, so if simply one tree was planted by yourself, that could be seen as an improvement. Ultimately, I’m highly sceptical of increasing forests – maybe an increase in timber growth forests, but NOT in ecologically rich natural forest growth.

Suburban sprawl never became a substantial problem. In fact, the 2000 Census records show that 94 percent of the United States is still rural, and only 5 percent of U.S. land mass is urban. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies demonstrates that what sprawl does occur is isolated and directly linked to uncontrolled immigration, a problem easily corrected — without central planning — if immigration laws are simply enforced.

“Suburban sprawl never became a substantial problem.” AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I live in probably the WORST city of low density sprawl – it’s a significant problem here and what a way of putting it – 94% is still rural and 5% urban. That is a warning sign on it’s own! Look at the size of the US! Of course the vast majority is going to be rural – it would be even more dramatic in Aust because most of Aust isn’t really suitable to urbanisation and it’s a fairly big landmass. Two things to remember when looking at sprawl – how much of the productive land it covers (now THAT would be interesting and terrifying) and how much they contribute to the country’s carbon emissions (that would be a massive part of the emissions). You’ll find also that a major component of the urban CO2 emissions is solely due to inefficient transport – largely resulting from sprawl.. I discuss this in the Innovation series and so won’t elaborate here. John’s a clever chap – again blaming immigration! Let’s see if, like yourself and Monckton, he’s able to work Hitler into the story as well… (ie. Godwin’s law)

And food? It just so happens that due to scientific innovation, farmers are growing more food per hectare on less land. But despite the factual evidence, leftists are now implementing environmental policies based on incorrect and historically inaccurate assumptions.

Food… Please. Just because John, yourself or I could eat like a pig, this doesn’t mean the world is abundant with food and John’s clever again with pointing out half the story that sounds good; “farmers are growing more food per hectare on less land”. We could, if we so choose, put on a banquet that could fill the bellies of our mates to the point of throwing up – yet more than half of our species lives in a perpetual state of malnutrition. Farming practices are increasingly becoming less sustainable – so much so that bees (one of the most important pollinators!!) in rural environments are even less healthy because of the modern farming practices!! Ever increasingly large machines and mono-culture practices are a short-term boon. They are not sustainable and as the land becomes overworked, it becomes unusable – this has been happening all over Aust for more than 60yrs, with farmers trying to use European methods rather than working with the land.

Paying homage to a long legacy of radical environmentalism, President Obama’s faithful followers have advanced the Livable Communities Act to attack nonexistent problems like sprawl and overpopulation, as well as sub-issues like pollution. Humans will be punished for seeking to improve their quality of life, with new limits on mobility and Orwellian guidelines dictating where citizens will be allowed to live and work, with the justification of ushering in “sustainable growth.” The facts do not matter to Obama and the left. The fact that urban sprawl is a nonexistent problem, that “smart growth” fails where tried, and that the Constitution does not permit government to dictate where and how citizens will live is irrelevant.

Wow, this next paragraph is a wonderful example of fear propaganda! As I’ve explained, sprawl is an issue, uncontrolled population growth is a problem – another example of this is with your generation – the baby boomers – it’s created an aging and thus more expensive population. Endless unregulated growth causes massive problems – China is in a strong position only because they took measures to regulate their population, however, they too will hit the aging population problem and simply relying on outdated unregulated growth, outdated energy sources, outdated simplified farming is simply setting us up for a fall. Corey from Conservationbytes has this excellent post regarding the situation. Hank at Ekos^2 has done many excellent posts, discussing the need to better balance economy with ecology – as have I dabbled into it from time to time (the easiest to mention would be the Innovation series again). Fear tactics and ignorance of real problems are by far the real control of the minds of the masses and what will send us up the creek without as paddle.

The current practices of federal agencies provide a few clues. Although the only body authorized under the Constitution to buy or sell land for government purposes is Congress, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other federal agencies like the Forest Service have for several decades deprived private property owners of their land (and cattle) at below market prices. The land is then leased back to its owners for a yearly fee. Land that predates the BLM is simply confiscated by way of litigation [i].

The next paragraph is again a targeted attack at a highly specialised situation to make the government seem oppressive and evil in the face of the battler – typical nonsense of current affair news programs. Would anyone want a government to work a nasty loophole to make a quick buck? This is not a “left” or “right” issue and irrelevant to John’s piece. IF it’s occurring… IF… well we’ve got a piggery of a government which John paints as somewhat of a communist feel – only to increase the fear. Not so cleverly thrown in with this case, but if he had you already hooked, you wouldn’t have noticed – just falling deeper into the 2mins of hate.

In one such case, a rancher named Wally Klump contested the BLM’s rights to his land owing to the fact that his ranch predated the BLM by one hundred years. When Klump refused to move, he was held in contempt and sent to federal prison. The result should come as no shock, since internal BLM documents reveal that humans are viewed as a “biological resource” for the purposes of “ecosystem management activities.”

Poor hard working Wally! Such a typical bloke, huh? Up against a nasty government; using ecology as a guise to do nasty things… John should work for one of those mock news “current affair” programs – he’s good. Of course this is nonsense and no ethically mind person on either side of this “debate” (as you call it) would want an oppressive government. Near the beginning of my blogging, I wrote about an idiot who was indulging in a hunger strike because the government wouldn’t let him farm the land as he wanted to. Now this is the reality which I’m sure our friend John here could paint the picture of a hard-up farmer against an oppressive government. In short, his practises were deemed outdated and unsustainable – that’s why they were banned. On the other hand, I’ve covered other case studies of numerous farmers who have adopted new approaches which has seen an increase in local biodiversity, a reduction in water loss, sprays and fertilizers, and less manual labour for great yields.

Most Americans are unaware that an organized assault on private property rights is tied to a series of dangerous foreign agreements that would transform America into Soviet-style “common” space by way of numerous “biosphere reserves.” Never ratified by Congress, these agreements have been incorporated into U.S. regulatory law by way of a Memorandum of Understanding. Interestingly, the “biosphere reserves” program aligns closely with the current Livable Communities Act, conjointly proposing more concentrated human habitats and “buffer zones” to limit human environmental impact. Family trips to Yosemite? Not for long.

Here we go!!! John didn’t turn to Hitler – he turned to the Soviets!!!! Damn communists! Geez Pete – you buy into such nonsense (again, thank you for demonstrating to my readers just how absurd your basis is). I suppose my posts on transit and pedestrian orientated developments sound like the same thing… hmmm… it’s like with you’re “I wanna debate about climate science..” while; “but all the scientific papers are in on the propaganda, thus can be ignored!” It’s the perfect loop in which no-one can argue with you because the conspiracy is too deep for reason to intrude… and you say I’m faith based! lol… John obviously expects his reader to be convinced by this point, so quite openly draws at an American’s (and no doubt an older Englishman’s) deepest fear; drawn from the cold war!

Similarly, the EPA has sought to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity by regulation, a treaty that was defeated in Congress on the grounds that it would have opened the door for a possible confiscation of up to fifty percent of the U.S. landmass under the guise of “conservation,” including private property. The Convention used the controversial Wildlands Project, which seeks to “rewild” the United States, as its model [ii].

The EPA are in on it too… why am I not surprised? Why do they want this land under the *cought* “guise of conservation”, if not for conservation? To develop workhouses for the rest of humanity to slave under the UN-world government? You and John have lost it… truly! There is no other reason, but for the sake of ecological richness and thus an increase in human health to conserve natural systems.

Reed Noss, a Wildlands Project proponent, once remarked that, “… the native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. …”[iii]. At issue is the constitutionality of regulation or foreign agreements using the Wildlands Project as the philosophical foundation for declared goals.

Foreign… if all else fails, the American xenophobe and Pete will shudder in fear when you write, “foreign agreement”. I’ve covered, endlessly, just how important ecology is to human life. We are provide an immense range of services that, without which, life would become difficult, if not impossible, for our species. Much of that life is supported by other life. Resilience to change (including climate change, which you agree is occurring, regardless of the forcing) is improved by healthy biodiversity. Without maintaining other life, we risk our own species (and before you jump to point out that I’ve provided no references, again, pretty much everything I’m saying here has been covered in greater detail, with a wealth of scientific literature, in the Innovation series).

Is the Constitution’s explicit protection of private property rights consistent with the huge assumptions of human expendability inherent in the Wildlands Project and the companion Convention on Biological Diversity?

Now that the fear is set in, he turned back to the typical note one hears from many American’s – it’s against the constitution, it’s against my rights! Well, “the right to bare arms” works wonders for the US, doesn’t it? This is just fear-mongering propaganda, with very little (and highly selective) foundation.

Even proponents of the Convention do not think so. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), commissioned by the Convention, had this to say of property rights:

It should be noted that in some countries, constitutional restrictions can make regulatory approaches to biodiversity conservation difficult. One frequently occurring constitutional provision that may cause difficulty is a guarantee against deprivation, or acquisition, or taking of property without compensation[iv].

The U.N. and its team of environmental activists view U.S. property rights as a “difficulty.” The right to live and work in a place of one’s own choosing is the definition of freedom. Karl Marx realized the connection between property and freedom. It was Marx who once said, “In a word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.” Conversely, the revered Justice Joseph Story once remarked, “That government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body[.]”

Now we’re in the deep of it, are we not? Hmm… as hairshirt green lefties scratch their heads as to how to restrict people… John’s an idiot. As I’ve explained in numerous posts, transit and pedestrian orientated developments pose a different and arguably improved way of living, promoting greater health, access to services, access to open spaces, local farming; arguably a much more diverse and enriching existence. Of course, this is not compatible with current sprawl. It poses interesting questions that I’ve discussed in the Innovation series. If you didn’t listen to fear-mongering nonsense like this and instead took real interest in the debate over future planning and development, you would see that there’s a wealth of fresh ideas and excellent proposals out there that deserve discussion. Of course, you and John are obviously scared of change and cover this in UN/communist delusions.
lol – John goes as far as quoting Marx – he is brilliant in hitting the xenophobic/communist fear nerve huh? All the while, writing a piece that’s little more than baseless fluff.

We know how well the Soviet Union protected the environment. Is this really the model we want to pursue under the guise of “livable communities”?

If we follow the suggestions of the radical environmentalists, human beings will be sacrificed on the altar of “sustainability.” And sometimes, quite literally. This is not stewardship, but perversion.

Clearly, the environmental agenda is not about protecting the environment, but about controllinghuman beings. The only thing “sustainable” about the radical environmental agenda is the predictable misery and poverty it will yield.

His conclusion is wonderful; “human beings will be sacrificed on the altar of “sustainability.” And sometimes, quite literally.” What the hell is this suppose to mean? Greenies out in the world by moonlight stealing your first borne? That you take such statements seriously is very much a detrimental mark on your credibility. Much of what John is scared of (minus the political rubbish that the two of you revel in) is what I discuss continuously. Never once have I suggested force or murder or new world order – this is the concoction of a sick mind, NOT reality Pete.
“Clearly, the environmental agenda is not about protecting the environment, but about controlling human beings.” hmmm… not really. As explained above, he’s pretty much delusional and without evidence throughout his piece and out of nowhere chucks communists into the mix… Honestly Pete, did you provide this as a joke or do you buy into such unsubstantiated fear-mongering nonsense??
No Pete (and the same to John here), predictable misery and poverty will follow when the crops fail, when species die off, unable to move or adapt to climate change (exacerbated by other human pressures), when water movement alters, when the oceans are depleted and when oil (and oil derived from coal – I add this silly fact for your sake) is in very short supply.
The “environmental agenda” (as this bozo puts it) is not about protecting the environment (he’s right with that): IT’S ABOUT PROTECTING A WORLD THAT IS HABITABLE FOR OUR SPECIES.

I understand that I was pretty harsh here, but if you had seen the whole conversation… believe me, I’m beyond frustration at this point. There is no way that political and scientific points of view can make headway if politics refutes all evidence on a hunch. The point here, however – and a point more meaningful than the article and my response – is that it is not always a good option to believe, at face value, what you read in pop-media. Journalists and other writers, like John here, are well trained at developing an argument that stirs emotions, rather than necessarily providing any greater understanding to the reader (re-read the purple part, and you’ll see that he starts with what sounds like logic and then shifts to fear, more often with a metaphor, or selective quoting rather than solid evidence). Like Monckton’s presentations – they get you all worked up about some nasty hidden agent, but they tend to leave this void inside, where deep down you realise that it just doesn’t make sense – but it sounded SO believable. The work here was not too subtle admittedly, but managed to work on an old western fear – the soviets – to somehow arrive to a ridiculous conclusion that environmental concern is somehow aimed to control and oppress our species (feel free to laugh here). It’s a cheap trick that leaves the more intelligent reader wondering where the hell this enemy magically appeared from and how is it working with my countries governing body? It’s pure nonsense to inspire paranoia in the face of legitimate contrary evidence that such a writer is obviously unable to debate with on an even playing field (much like Dr. Glikson mentioned in The art of denial, “If either party chooses not operate under those rules [accepted academic debate], then they will tend to win (unfairly)”).

Another note out to my American audience: I know that I seem to come of quite hard on the US here, and I realise that the generalisations I’ve made reflect the lowest common denominator, and not the many wonderful minds that I’ve had the great privilege of meeting and conversing with via this blog and elsewhere. I truly mean no offence.


4 thoughts on “Critical Analysis of an Article of Hate…

  1. I often wonder if people who complain about the “leftist” “greenie” “hippie” agenda have ever met any of the people they’re talking about. The ones I’ve met vary from outright anarchists – who talk much the same kind of stuff as this piece about ‘freedom’ to live ‘the good life’ as they understand it, to seriously traditional back-to-nature types – who think everyone should wash their clothes by hand over a copper in the backyard, to fairly standard political stances in the Labor / Dems / Green parties, spiced by the occasional conservative voter.

    The idea that any of the people I’ve met would accept, let alone approve, a communist style top-down bossy re-organisation of Australian (or similar) society is just laughable.

    The problems this John person mentions in the US are merely examples of the eternal truth that some bureaucracies can act in ways that seem unfair to some people. Often they’re not, they’re just doing something that has to be done – like health inspectors closing down crook restaurants, or engineers closing down an unsafe bridge that just happens to be your quickest route to town.

    Sometimes they get it wrong. And?

    A human organisation isn’t perfect? Newsflash! Stop the presses!

    Just because we may not like what some people say or what governments or bureaucrats do, we cannot presume that they are bad people. Let alone that they’re puppets under the malign influence of shadowy personages who want to destroy our society.


    1. Exactly… Largely, I feel the real root of it a fear of change. Dress this up in old/outdated/nonsense fears (such as communism, xenophobia, fascism etc) that are in continual use (think of Godwin’s Law – if you’ve got nothing real to offer, accuse the other of acting like a nazi – that’ll shut them up), you get irrelevant fears rolling into a single fear.
      Our recent election had a classic example – the boat people. It makes me horribly mad that Abbott stirs up xenophobia/terrorist fears at the expense of human rights.
      I’ve never really understood the whole lefty/hippy thing either. I get accused of being one, but at closest, I have friends that have permaculture farms. I don’t think of myself as a lefty, more that what they’re passionate about largely meets up with reasonable choices. As you say – how anyone could link them with communism is nothing but laughable!
      I think a single case John was able to find probably didn’t fit his argument too well – so he kept it quite broad. The same happened conservative reporting on the whole Peter Spencer hunger strike episode. When you look at the reality, it was a reasonable law, but some of the reporting made it about a punished Aussie battler.. It was a joke.
      I’d argue that such writing, like John’s here, is, hypocritically, an attempt at controlling the thinking of the reader than any of the organisations that he and Pete point their fingers at. It’s absurd, inaccurate and attempts to create hatred.
      Glad you just read it now – I made a stack of mistakes, which I largely left unchanged in my reply to Pete, but just had the chance cleaned up here, now.


  2. James, if you click on the Answering Denial and Innovation is Key headings above, you’ll have enough solid reading matter to keep you occupied for quite a while. And when you go to the links in the articles, well!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s