Jay Lorenz – Russia Insider Feb 12, 2019
Couched in the language of global warming and environmentalism is a plan for mass wealth redistribution from Whites to nonwhites. The GND is essentially a national version of the Paris Climate Accord, which dictated that wealthy White countries (especially the U.S.) pay for the development of nonwhite countries as reparations for allegedly ruining the climate through industrialization. The GND would use the pretense of global warming to redistribute wealth from Whites to nonwhites within America.
One of its main stated goals is to “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.” The resolution later defines “frontline and vulnerable communities” as, in essence, nonwhites. The resolution posits that they have received the brunt of the negative effects of industrialization, and thus should be given reparations. This is representative of the broader anti-White ideology, which sees White success as always coming at the expense of nonwhites. Global warming is racist, and it is the government’s job to mitigate those effects.
Though called the Green New Deal for the propaganda goal of putting the primary focus on the environmental element, the resolution could more accurately be called the Brown New Deal. It certainly sees the original New Deal as the White New Deal. Page 4 reads:
“Whereas the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen, but many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations.”
Whitey got a New Deal, and now we want ours.
However, one goal of the resolution is actually an admirable one: to invest in modernizing the infrastructure of the country. More of an afterthought in the GND, this aspect would be at the forefront of a good version of this legislation in a White country. High-speed rail, the restructuring of cities to make them cleaner, more efficient, more beautiful, and more enjoyable, creating jobs through grand building projects, and improving the environment in tangible ways—these are the things we should be focusing on.
Unfortunately, even the GND’s good ideas would largely be a failure in modern America. A socialist proposal like this combined with multiculturalism and open borders would still lead to catastrophe. For example, the resolution includes a federal jobs guarantee. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the resolution’s chief architects, said this week that all Latinos have a racial right to come to the United States, legally or illegally. That means a guaranteed job for millions of people south of the border. Many Democrats believe the same right exists for everyone on earth (or at least everyone who isn’t White). In fact, the access of non-citizens to American constitutional rights has been affirmed by the U.S. court system. This means that any socialist program implemented in America must necessarily be extended to anyone who wants to come here and use it. This is the reason that every social institution in America is a failure.
Socialism and mass migration/multiculturalism are incompatible. Socialism only works when combined with nationalism. Socialism presupposes a people. Without a cohesive nation to aid and improve, it just amounts to throwing money at various interest groups. The GND is not about pooling resources for the greater good of the nation, but redistributing them from one group to others. Any socialist project in America will be anti-White, because it will require Whites to give up resources in order to improve the lot of nonwhites.
This is the primary reason for the visceral negative reaction of White America to socialist programs. Whites instinctually know that socialism means taking from them and giving to the outgroup. Conservatives capitalize on this instinct by feeding Whites the doctrine of individualism. The only alternative, they are told, to giving resources away to nonwhites is to avoid working for any greater good entirely.
The Green New Deal would be a failure, but not for the reasons stated by conservatives. Their hand-wringing about the finances of it and scoffing at the utopian goals says more about them than it does about Ocasio-Cortez. Conservatives become obsessed with “paying for” projects as soon as those projects stand to benefit anyone outside of the special interests that control them. When it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy or importing more low-skilled labor for big corporations, no expense is spared, including the economic and demographic displacement of average Americans. When it comes to protecting the interests of Israel, no expense is spared, including the lives of Americans.
When it comes to investing in America’s infrastructure and its future, all of sudden conservatives start crunching the numbers.
This is because conservatives have no vision for the future themselves. Ultimately, the path Ocasio-Cortez and others imagine will be a disaster for White Americans, but so will the status quo that conservatives so vigorously defend. In place of the Left’s vision for the future, conservatives provide precisely nothing. They fail to even mention the racial element of the GND at all, even though that is its primary element. As the representatives of nonwhite America fight tooth and nail for resources and a better future, White Americans are told that fighting for themselves as a group is immoral and that it’s silly and wasteful to dream of a better tomorrow.
The representatives of nonwhite America are working to deliver a Brown New Deal to their people. White America’s representatives are leaving them to fend for themselves.
Alex Newman – The New American Feb 11, 2019
The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore (shown) warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive. Other experts such as Craig Rucker, the executive director of the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), also sounded the alarm about the “green” proposal in Congress, comparing it to Soviet five-year plans and calling it a “prescription for disaster.”
The so-called Green New Deal is a massive scheme to, among other goals, restructure the U.S. economy. It is being advanced by a coalition of radical communist and socialist Democrats in Congress led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). A resolution (H. Res. 109) “recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (GND)” already has 67 co-sponsors in the House. If the scheme outlined in the resolution expressing the “sense of the House” is implemented, it would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 — an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade.
Moore, who was one of six international directors of Greenpeace, was flabbergasted that something so ludicrous could even be proposed, much less be advanced in the U.S. government. “It is quite amazing that someone that is in government — actually elected to the government of the United States of America — would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years,” he said in an on-camera interview with The New American from Canada. “This would basically result, if we did it on a global level, it would result in the decimation of the human population from 7-odd billion down to who knows how few people.” It would end up killing almost everyone on the planet, he added.
Worse than mass death would be the way people reacted. “It would basically begin a process of cannibalization among the human species, because the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore,” Moore continued. “The point that bothers me the most is that if you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There is no other source for heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You could use animal dung, if there were any animals left, but the animals would all die too because they would all get eaten.”
Moore also slammed the “social aspects” of the Green New Deal proposals such as “paying people who are unwilling to work,” according to a FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez’ office. “I can’t believe that anyone would write that in a proposal for law in the United States of America,” he said, calling it “just unbelievable.” Indeed, that language and other half-baked ideas caused nationwide ridicule of Ocasio-Cortez and others involved in pushing the “New Deal.” The ridicule got so intense that one of its propoents eventually lied, claiming that mischievous Republicans might have put out a fake Green New Deal document to make Democrats look ridiculous. But then the truth came out, depsite the FAQ being removed from Cortez’s congressional website.
But the absurdity of it all may be a boost to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “We have a situation where something completely preposterous is being backed by a large number of Democratic congressional elected representatives in the United States of America,” Moore said. “This is actually going to put Trump right over the top. I cannot see how this can possibly be negative for him. It can only be positive, because people recognize when something is preposterous. And I think that is the best word for it.”
“The best term for it is actually mass-suicidal,” Moore added. “Why would anyone vote for something that was going to result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth?” As far as what Americans could do who support the environment but not mass suicide, Moore urged people not to vote for anyone who would support the “Green New Deal.”
Speaking at a conference put on by the Economic Education Association of Alberta over the weekend, Moore also explained that so much of what climate alarmists were pushing was pseudo-science and easily discredited lies. For instance, carbon dioxide is actually doing great things in terms of greening the planet — after all, it is plant food, Moore said. He also lambasted those who say coral reefs are dying due to alleged man-made global warming, something he said was not true. Noting that trucks need hydrocarbon fuels to bring produce to market in cities, Dr. Moore explained that just that one problem alone would be absolutely catastrophic if CO2 emissions were ended.
Moore has since left the Greenpeace he helped found, because it left him. When the group was founded, “we wanted to save civilization, we didn’t want to destroy it,” he told The New American. “By the time I left Greenpeace, it had drifted into a situation in which all they had left was the green. They kind of dropped the peace, which was the human side of the situation. And now they were characterizing people as the enemies of the Earth — the human species as the enemies of nature, as if we were the only evil species.”
One of the most outrageous campaigns by Greenpeace, Moore said, was when the leadership — which had no formal science education — decided to try to ban chlorine use worldwide. “Yes, chlorine can be toxic, it was used as a weapon in World War I,” he said. “But the fact that it is toxic is why it is the most important element in public health and medicine. Adding it to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health … that has saved hundreds of millions of lives through the time that we learned to use chlorine as an anti-bacterial agent.” Nature, he added, is full of toxic materials.
In his own keynote address at the conference, CFACT’s Rucker — who famously boarded Greenpeace ships to “punk” them with propaganda banners reading “ship of lies” and “propaganda warrior” — explained that much of the environmentalist movement has it backwards. The real key to preserving the environment, he said, is free markets, private property, and prosperity. Poor nations do not have the resources to protect the environment. And socialist-ruled nations have the worst environmental track-records of all. Meanwhile, freer and wealthier nations such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe have remarkably clean environments.
In an interview with The New American, Rucker celebrated freedom. “What’s good for people is good for nature,” he said, calling for pro-growth policies that benefit people rather than government-enforced scarcity. “It’s like the old Chinese proverb: When there is food on the table, there are many problems; when there is no food on the table, there is one problem. Societies that do not take care of their people don’t have the resources to take care of the planet.”
Rucker, a top leader of the non-totalitarian environmental movement, also slammed the “Green New Deal” being advanced in Congress. “It is a horrible idea,” he said, blasting the original New Deal as well. “But I actually think it is more like the Soviet 5-year plan…. They want to be off fossil fuels within 10 years. That is insane. It is not that we are embracing fossil fuels, but this is a government-driven objective much like the old Soviet plans were government-driven objectives. It is going to fail. And the problem is, it is going to take a lot of people down with it… This is going to really hurt people. It is a prescription for disaster.”
Citing University of Maryland business Professor Julian Simon, Rucker used a hillarious example to illustrate the point. If the ideology of the sustainable-development movement were used 100 years ago, there would be great concern about where humanity was going to get enough whale oil to use as lighting. But of course, since then, electricity and light bulbs have taken the place of whale oil, thereby eliminating the alleged prospect of resources running out. The same concept applies to other resources, too, he said. When the price goes up due to scarcity, people will find substitutes and new ways of getting what they need — at least they will if markets are allowed to operate. “People are not just mouths, they are also hands and a brain,” he said.
He also drew a distinction between the “conservation” ethic, in which man is included in how to protect the planet, and the “preservation” ethic and the “Deep Green ecology” that views man as a “virus on the planet” that needs to be removed. Obviously, efforts to conserve nature should have the well-being of man in mind, he said.
Rucker and Moore both served at keynote speakers at the annual “FreedomTalk” conference Economic Education Association of Alberta. This writer gave a speech focusing on the indoctrination of children taking place in public schools — and particularly the implications of it for freedom. Other speakers highlighted the problems with the man-made global-warming hypothesis, the looming public pension disaster, and much more.
SHARE THIS POST