Too Upsetting to Be Seen? The Double Standard of the Left

In an earlier post I discussed the horrifying eco-fascist snuff film which featured blowing up school children in the most graphic way for declining to join in the 10:10 carbon reduction program. James Delingpole has a humorous (if that is possible) take down of this revolting piece of propaganda on his blog entitled: "10:10: Who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?"

But now we have a story about Carleton University refusing pro-life students permission to set up public displays of pictures of abortion on campus. Click here to see Canadian students being led away in handcuffs for attempting to exercise their constitutional liberties and rights in public. In denying their right to free speech, the Leftists who run the university claim that people have a right not to be upset.

So people have a right not to be upset when it comes to abortion. Bloody, graphic pictures are out. But when it comes to Mother Gaia blood and gore are definitely A-OK with the Left. As usual the Left has a double standard.

We can take away several points from this comparison. For one thing, the abortion pictures have shock value and they work, which is a good reason for supporting the Genocide Awareness Project and Carleton Lifeline. The rage on the Left is not caused by a soft-hearted concern for the vulnerable. No, they oppose it because it exposes the ugly truth. Secondly, the Left is not committed to supporting free speech, which means they are undermining the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are a menace to a free society and the fact that they control many Canadian universities is a scandal.

Let no one doubt that the threat to the right to life, free speech and an open society comes not from the right but from the Left.

Eco-fascism and the Culture of Death

As I reported in an earlier post, the radical Greens in the 10:10 movement in the UK shot themselves in themselves in the foot with that little monument to eco-fascism, the short film "No Pressure." When the history of the Green movement is studied a hundred years from now, this little piece will be to the Green movement what Leni Riefenstahl's "The Triumph of the Will" was to Nazism: a perfect icon of the essence of the ideology.

It appears that corporate sponsors are jumping ship from the 10:10 shipwreck:

It looks like Sony and Kyocera Mita have demanded their removal from all associations with the extremist climate group 10:10.org, which produced that exploding schoolchildren video last week. The corporations' names have been removed from the list of partners, and a lengthy post by Sony's point-person on climate change, Naomi Climer, has been deleted from the 10:10 site.

Not only that, but a huge U.S. environmentalist promoter and partner, 350.org (headed by Bill McKibben), is no longer listed as an organizational partner. Both 10:10 and 350 have been heavily promoting an October 10 (10/10/10) "global workday" to supposedly bring fresh attention to the global warming threat. The message from 350.org's press shop:

We respect 10:10's previous work to encourage companies, schools, and churches to voluntarily cut their carbon emissions 10%. Upon seeing the video, however, we have informed 10:10 that we can no longer remain partners on 10/10/10 or any other initiative. 350.org maintains an absolute commitment to nonviolence in word and deed.

I don't think one has to be committed to absolute nonviolence in order to find ruthless, lawless, arbitrary, murder to be reprehensible.

After the mealy-mouthed non-apology issued on Friday when the 10:10 group took down the offensive film only served to stoke the global rage over the hideous and pornography, yet highly revealing, little piece of Green propoganda, the head of the organization, Eugenie Harvey, today issued a more fulsome apology.

But you might want to have your sick bag at the ready when you come to the part where she proffers her lame excuse is that the 10:10 team is "young and creative." As Jean-Francois Revel puts it in his powerful book, Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, Marxists (and, let's face it, most Greens have drunk deeply from the Marxist well) are trapped in their ideology and sometimes they forget that the rest of the world thinks murder is unacceptable in the service of ideology. All that is important for Greens, as for Marxists, is that they have "Good Intentions." Everything else is a detail - details like the people ruthlessly blown to bits in the film.

The Green movement is part of the culture of death and therefore they see killing the innocent as part of the solution to social problems. Hence their support for abortion, euthanasia and coercive eugenics. Their promotion of the contraceptive mentality and population control by governments is part of the same anti-humanistic mentality. These people are dangerous and they are powerful. Their propaganda is effective, their fund-raising schemes efficient and their influence is widespread. We need to get them out of our public education system, out of government and out of the administration of universities.

Royal Society Says "Maybe Oops!" About Global Warming

From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker comes this helpful summary of recent events at the Royal Society in London entitled: "Global Warming Theory Challenged by Top UK Scientific Body."

"The Royal Society, Britain's version of the US National Academy of Sciences, has been forced by climate dissidents to officially review its previous statements in unquestioning support of global warming theory. The Times of London reports:

Britain's premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures.

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution's official position on global warming. It will publish a new "guide to the science of climate change" this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: "Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect - there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements." This contradicts a comment by the society's previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: "The debate on climate change is over."

Marc Marano of Climate Depot headlines it: "Dam breaks." However, James Delingpole of the UK Telegraph, a leading skeptic, calls it "too little too late." The Royal Society's statement on the review is found here."

The climb down continues. The problem for many scientific bodies is how to reverse their climate alarmism without shredding all of their credibility. I'd suggest that the faster they do it, the better they look. I also think that they should quietly convey to government officials the intelligence that a policy change will be necessary sooner or later so they might want to start preparing by distancing themselves from the most extreme eco-fascist rhetoric.

Some Thoughts On Preventing Eco-fascism

From James Delingpole comes this note on James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis. My comments below.

"Here is the kindly, distinguished inventor of the Gaia hypothesis interviewed in the Guardian, when asked how humans will ever manage to tackle ‘climate change’.

We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

“It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” Hmm. I’m sure he said it in a gentle, quavery, tentative voice, but even so, don’t phrases like that tend to make the blood run cold – especially when spoken by the man viewed by many of the world’s eco-loons as the ultimate environmental guru?"

__________________

Fascist tyranny has gripped several otherwise normal countries in the past 100 years and not all the people in those countries were fascists. It is no good to mentally scroll down one's list of friends and to say "I don't think any of them are fascists or would fall for fascism." That does not prove that fascism could not come to seem attractive to many or most people in our country under the right conditions.

Ah, but what conditions you say? Emergency conditions. There has to be some looming catastrophe, some on-going seemingly intractable chaos, a crisis that only strong leadership from above can deal with. It would seem to me that this is the real danger of the whole global warming phenomenon. It becomes such an obsession and overwhelming crisis in the minds of scientists that they begin to fudge data. It becomes such a powerful narrative that it begins to sap the resistance of politicians to doing enormously harmful things to mitigate it. And it becomes enough of a fright to the general population that they cry out for action - any action - no matter the cost or the implications.

Is it rational? No, but rationality is not the point. Is it likely? No, but it is possible. Is it inevitable? Absolutely not. Cooler heads must prevail and public panic must be avoided. That cuts off the oxygen on which fascism lives.