The Green Party, Nazis, eugenics and population control

Is there an election on?

caroline-sadiq-khanSuddenly Labour have appointed an anti-Green guru, Sadiq Khan MP, to spearhead anti-Green attacks and stories are beginning to emerge comparing Greens to Nazis and implying the stuff of hyper-conspiracy theories such as huge population control!

But posts such as this don’t really do Labour any favours.

Yes Greens are concerned with population, who wouldn’t be? World population has exploded in the last century, 70% of the world’s oceans are overfished, agriculture relies on huge oil industry inputs. But Green Party policy is very straightforward on this: “The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.” It’s not hard to find.

It’s a clear sign of Labour desperation to start comparing Greens to Nazis. What they’re really worried about is people comparing the Greens with themselves!  – A party committed against austerity and its causes (the corruption of banking) compared to one clearly committed to austerity and its causes (the banks)! Or a party committed to a publicly owned NHS, compared to one – and, sure, Labour seriously invested in – but also mortgaged to the hilt by PFI and introduced choice and competition – acceptable memes beginning a policy of privatisation. Labour began the dismantling of the NHS.

What if the jackboot were on the other foot? Would Greens compare Labour to the Nazis? No. Except in one case. Iraq. At Nuremberg the supreme crime was defined as the launching of a war of aggression. Such a war was launched on Iraq, with  America and Britain leading the way. WMD was an issue made up, propagandised by government and parroted by the BBC (98% pro-war). We know WMD was made up, not least from Scott Ritter (UN chief weapons inspector and whistleblower), or post hoc by Dr David Kelly, RIP, but because the Downing Street Memo (2002) makes it clear that facts were being fixed around the policy. A gap between policy and reality big enough to inspire the greatest demonstration by the British public ever on 15th Feb 2003. It wasn’t a ‘mistake’. It was deliberate policy, with Blair talking MP after MP into voting for it. And now 1.5 million Iraqis are dead.

Peace is a major plank in Green Party policy. Not just the avoidance of war but the creation of a society where we can get along adequately.

After the failures of Labour (Iraq, PFI, bailouts) and the Conservatives (austerity, Libya/Syria, Bedroom Tax, foodbanks, etc) people are knocking down Green doors and asking what do you do better? And they’re finding answers such as the Citizen’s Income, renationalisation of utilities and the railways, pursuing greater taxes from those who have greatest wealth (an estimated £120 bn a year is waiting to be recovered), a Robin Hood Tax on international banking  – a microtax but which would see off austerity on its own. And you still get the Bedroom Tax binned, austerity binned and even that much-promised-but-never-delivered referendum on the EU! What’s not to like?

Right now people are voting with their feet.

The Green Surge has meant membership doubling this year! It’s never done that before. In Scotland it’s gone exponential, AFTER losing the independence vote, one that Greens campaigned hard for. Nationally Greens are nipping on the heels of Ukip which claims 42,000 members. Last week, Greens touched 10% in the opinion polls. Yet last December Greens were on 2%.

brighton-reportOther attacks focus on Brighton where the Greens have their only council. Coalition-led and Labour-backed austerity means councils have to slash services or raise more money (a possibility also capped). When Greens in Brighton attempted to raise more money through Council Tax, Labour shot them down. Until recently. Now Labour have pushed through, with Tory help, a hike in Council Tax but just for the poorest!

It’s far better to see Brighton Greens’ achievements on the Council in the round so here’s their 2013 report (PDF).

And it would be far better to stick to the issues – unless, of course, you’re going to lose.


10 thoughts on “The Green Party, Nazis, eugenics and population control

  1. ” Whilst the Holocaust took place, German army comrades were also busy establishing bird sanctuaries, nature walks and planting trees. The Nazis conducted horrific experiments on men, women and children but at the same time, they banned medical experiments on animals. ”

    Haha, not like the labour party would ever go round the world annihilating people en mass due to the baleful influence of crazed demagogues, eh?
    How’s the Iraqi environment doing lately ? Not to good, after all that bombing.

    But I take issue with this bit – “We know WMD was made up, not least from Scott Ritter”, an even better source would be Lawrence Wilkerson, who was tasked with helping to make the bullshit up in the first place and is spending the rest of his life trying to make amends. Would that some in the Labour party had as much honour. Locally, Prescott tells us he thinks it was all wrong. Alan Johnson still seems to be defending Blair.

    And then there’s the ridiculous waste of effort in Afghanistan, another great, big, pointless Labour cock up waste of lives and money.

  2. Nevertheless, Greens do have something in common with nazis, in that they are a totalitarian movement intent on affecting and controlling every aspect of society and life. Not least because they want to do away with the notion of wilderness and replace all that is wild with a climate controlled Earth-farm. But do they realise this ? And do they realise this is hubris ?

    • The Greens realise everything you say.
      And that it’s rubbish.
      If you want to look at a Nazi-like totalitarian world just observe the one you have!
      Neoliberalism and the Washington consensus rule the roost.
      They see no major problem emptying the seas of fish.
      Or converting the world’s crops to the invasive, dominant, totalitarian system of agriculture that is GM.
      Even to the extent of banning farmers keeping seed for the next crop!
      Bowing to the dominance of the oil industry even having wars for it, even threatening air, land and water with the latest dangerous industry, fracking.
      Then there’s the banks – too big to fail. Big enough to demand trillion dollar/pound bailouts.
      Creating money out of nothing , then demand we pay it back through sweat and property.
      Yes we have pride for what we stand for. But it’s a tiny fraction of the hubris of the 1%.

      • Or, to put it shortly, total control of the Earth is the battle being fought between several factions, whichever side wins – it will still be total control.
        Total control follows total awareness – and I can look at the smog levels in Beijing and the krill count in the antarctic ocean from my computer here.

  3. Aha, I don’t agree.

    The world I live in isn’t totalitarian, corporations don’t control everything. If they do then all protest against them has failed, and everything we say is forced from us by Washington.

    Is the oil industry and the Washington military in control ? They got beaten in Iraq and Afghanistan – they can’t control it. Do they control Venezuela ? Russia ? China ?

    Are the ruling 1% really so cunning as to mask every victory and expansion as a defeat ?

    Encyclopedia Britannica says – “totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government.”

    Well, the environmental movement has aims to regulate via governmental force the entire biosphere – how many fish you can take from the sea, how much carbon should be in the air, how much energy you can use and of what type, how many animals and of what type should live in the forests, what the temperature of the entire global atmosphere should be.

    Total planetary control. Hence totalitarianism. Ok not the same as Hitlerian totalitarianism – but it’s total government nonetheless. Or do you think there should be exceptions, some people who can do what they want ?

    Under their own remit Washington’s corporations and governments seek to control people and resources, but insofar as they are reckless and uncaring of their pollution and consequences of their actions they are wild, like the animals who don’t think about whether they are overconsuming or dumping too many feces around the place – they just do it because it satisfies their needs.

    Wild rabbits breed and eat all the grass until their population crashes. Tame rabbits live in a controlled environment.

    Wild people breed and burn all the oil up. Tame people live in a regulated environment.

    Isn’t it the aim of the Green movement to seek more domestication of people, to prevent wild population growth, resource use, to farm the planet so that people are comfortable and the climate and environment are totally predictable – so that all farmers globally have enough water for their crops, don’t suffer bush fires. Is that possible without total control ?

    If not, how much wild uncontrolled activity is the right amount, how much selfish pollution is allowed ?

  4. ….but ! you say, But there are millions of square miles of wilderness on this planet – the mighty forests where the wolves roam, the deserts, the mountain ranges.
    However, atmospheric temperature affects all of these, and all the life forms living in the wilderness. A couple of hundred years ago you might have been able to claim there was still some untouched wilderness – but if science tells us that our activities affect even the growth of trees in the middle of Siberia or the water available to camels in the middle of the Sahara, and that we are to gain control of these effects – then that means we control those areas and life forms – even if it means “re-wilding” them in order to maintain a ‘natural’ food chain.

    Hence it won’t be wild. I’m labouring the point – but why do I never hear this ?

    Copied and pasted from Green Party website ~~~
    Our Philosophical Basis

    A system based on inequality and exploitation is threatening the future of the planet on which we depend, and encouraging reckless and environmentally damaging consumerism.
    A world based on cooperation and democracy would prioritise the many, not the few, and would not risk the planet’s future with environmental destruction and unsustainable consumption.

    This is basically a call for domestication of all resources, for the benefit of people, isn’t it ?

    adjective: wild; comparative adjective: wilder; superlative adjective: wildest

    1. (of an animal or plant) living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.
    “a herd of wild goats”

    verb (used with object), domesticated, domesticating.
    1. to convert (animals, plants, etc.) to domestic uses; tame.
    2. to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.
    3. to adapt (a plant) so as to be cultivated by and beneficial to human beings.

  5. There you go, filled up some of the empty space for you 🙂 Your server hard drives were wild and untouched, now I’ve domesticated them.

    What are the environmental policies of WordPress, BTW ? What powers their servers ? How is their hardware made and in what conditions ?

  6. How fast is that river…how many fish live in it….what eats the fish…. who takes teh water….does it come from a glacier….is the glacier melting….does it have fertilizer in it……what does the satellite data say about it….is it radioactive….does it irrigate crops….what is the sedimentation like….how deep is it….how can we ensure that it benefits us….is there any unaithorised use….

    Don’t we live in a time when every aspect of nature is monitored and micromanaged ? Not quite, but it seems only a matter of time when every single thing on Earth is feeding into databanks to make sure it is functioning as we want it.

    How many wolves are there in that forest…are they eatng the right amount of deer…are the trees growing at the correct rate….is the soil contaminated….is there soot deposition…who is depositing the soot….how can we monitor and regulate them…how thick is the leaf litter….what do the animals sound like….have we tagged all the birds….are there enough birds….do the wolves have diseases…should we vaccinate them….is there unauthorised hunting….

    How much carbon do you use…is your fridge efficient enough…when is it switched on…when are your lights switched on….how much electricity do you use….when do you use it….does your electricity use endanger the fish or the wolves….why don’t we wire your fridge up to the wolf database….what is your heartrate….how many calories do you use….do you eat meat….how do you fit into the ecosystem…. who and what is your calory count endangering….

    All wired up together in one great big monitoring network – that’s where the Green Party is heading isn’t it ? Otherwise – how will it achieve it’s aims ?
    How’d you fancy getting in charge of all that …imagine the power….this time it will be OK, this time it will be for the good….

  7. ….and of course the militaries of the world have cottoned on to the environment as a national security threat, which means merger of things like Total Information Awareness with environmental monitoring.

    ….does that river have strategic value…what happens if we dam it…does it hold enough fish to stop the population becoming hungry and restive…when will that river silt up that strategic port….is that water supply going to be able to support that population or are they going to migrate over our borders….which industries rely on the river….will that melting ice open up new strategic resources….will our sonar operate in that temperature….can we predict a population’s behaviour by monitoring their energy use….how much electricity does a Russian need…how much water does a Syrian use….how many calories does an Iranian eat…..

  8. Now for the eugenics bit. Political views have been shown to have a high heritability, as science has been exploring for a few years now. When you go up against your political opponents, you might well ask whether you are going up against a certain genotype, and how you should go about suppressing or otherwise neutralising the activity of those genes.

    —- “So far as the data suggest, a theory and method which includes genetic influences, no matter how large or small, accounts for portions of Conservative-Liberal orientations that environment-only models do not.”

    What if the recklessness that leads to environmental destruction has a genetic component ? What if the Koch brothers have a gene that makes them aggressively pusue self interest ?

    Maybe the Chinese have the answer as Slavoj Zizek says

    —– “When I was in China, some researchers showed me a document from their Academy of Sciences which says openly that the goal of their biogenetic research is to enable large-scale medical procedures which will “rectify” the physical and physiological weaknesses of the Chinese people.”

    Wouldn’t you like to see that document ?

    So, will the conversion of the Earth’s ecosystem t one that is sustainably farmed to serve human need, which seems to be green party policy, require complete surveillance and regulation, and some genetic modification to remove harmful genotypes ?

    Otherwise, how are you going to do it ?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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