Is Eco-Fascist the right label?

Nobody with an eye on the state of the climate change game can have failed to notice that the failing science has not led to changed policies – or at least not overtly. Meanwhile climate zealots seem to be as active as ever, and if anything more aggressive.

The exaggerations are still with us, the lies about scientific certainty and inevitable catastrophe are still being peddled with no real attempt to reinstate any semblance of scientific integrity or dignity. So where is it all leading, or should we see such a question as too naive? Should we simply refer to the peddlers of climate change propaganda as Eco-Fascists? Or is it too early to call a spade a spade?

Well it seem to me that climate propaganda, at least within the EU, has not been unduly impacted by the failure of its catastrophic predictions to materialise.

And so on and so on. But none of this seems to be making any real difference to committed individuals and major institutions promoting climate alarm as a matter of policy. Now Climategate 2 has been digested and with all that we have learned about policy-based science, it may be time for more genuine alarm, because it doesn’t look good.

The science no longer matters – it never did except as a launch platform for UN global control policies. Eco-fascist may well be more accurate than we’d like it to be. It’s all about political control. Of course it always was and it’s been obvious for years that this is so, but the scientific garbage got in the way and still provides smokescreens and distractions for those who need it.

John Holdren is advisor to President Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The book Ecoscience, was first published in 1978 and coauthored by John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. It contains these words :-

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable.

The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. 

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

This kind of thinking has been going on for a long time, so the failure of mainstream climate science isn’t going to make much difference to true believers and especially those who manipulate their beliefs. If we’re not talking about Eco-Fascism here, then it’s too close to matter anyway. So yes – Eco-Fascist is the right label

19 comments for “Is Eco-Fascist the right label?

  1. Dave G
    January 27, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    The politicians might, *might* have been acting in good faith when they first heard the evidence – although their total belief-without-question leads one to wonder…… except that the lure of massive gains in taxation-without-question surely over-rode that little difficulty.
    Now, of course, the reliance on the tax-grab is so ingrained, having already been spent, that to admit to the ‘lie’ would cause far greater repercussions than the already impossible debt situation they (we) face.
    If we really want that ‘revolution’ to start then getting the Pols to admit to their deceit would be the sure way to start one.

    • January 27, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      Yes, I think some politicians may have been acting in good faith originally. Can’t see anyone admitting the deceit though.

      • January 28, 2012 at 6:59 am

        No, well, to admit that you’ve been had yourself is to admit to failure, isn’t it?

        • nisakiman
          January 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm

          Particularly when you’ve committed hundreds of millions of taxpayers money, past and future, to this scam already.

          They have no choice but to keep up the pretense, doubtless in the hope that they can avoid a confluence of piano wire, lamp posts, and themselves.

    • January 27, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      Interesting – extremes unite.

  2. Mary
    January 27, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    “Nobody with an eye on the state of the climate change game can have failed to notice that the failing science has not led to changed policies – or at least not overtly.” Possibly the worst-constructed lead-in I have ever seen. It is so full of negatives, it is impossible to figure out what it means, and the use of the verb ‘fail’ twice within six words is jarring. Not even Higham writes as badly as this.

    • January 28, 2012 at 7:00 am

      It’s perfectly understandable. Are you sure you aren’t just seeing what you want to see, Mary?

  3. ivan
    January 28, 2012 at 9:55 am

    There is another name that could be used – watermelons, green on the outside but red inside.

    • January 29, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      I agree – and it’s becoming a well-known name too.

  4. January 28, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Policies are not yet changing though are they? They almost have what they want: which is a new taxation stream, energy taxation at the stealth level using mostly hidden carbon taxes, plus control mechanisms over vast areas of people’s lives by price manipulation and restrictions on basic essentials, all of which require energy.
    Once these things are properly placed they will be carefully forgotten along with the dodgy science as the politicians all pretend they always had doubts. They will stop the overt shop window stuff like windmills with great fanfare while luxuriating in what they have achieved in financial and control terms.

  5. January 28, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Well, the blindingly obvious fact that all these ‘Green’ policies will cause large sections of various economies to implode. Indeed, the process is already quite advanced. As a consequence Eco-Fascism will ultimately be self defeating. How can it be anything but?

    I’m not worrying because there’s nothing I can do, apart from watch the fun from afar.

    • nisakiman
      January 28, 2012 at 8:36 pm

      “Afar” is most definitely the place to be.

    • January 29, 2012 at 6:33 am

      At least Canada seems to be heading in the right direction now, or at least more reluctant to jump off the cliff. Wish I could say the same of Oz.

      • January 29, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        Yes – Canada does seem to be thinking seriously about the advantages of sanity.

  6. Andrew Duffin
    January 30, 2012 at 9:24 am

    AGW-driven policies haven’t changed because AGW is a religion, so it isn’t amenable to rational debate.

    As for the global government thing, do you think the Chinese will go for that? Or the Russians? Or any Islamist nation?

    No, it’s only the failing West that will fall for such a trick.

    • January 30, 2012 at 11:09 am

      Yes – we seem to be big on gullibility.

  7. Andy
    January 31, 2012 at 2:32 am

    My only concern is that if it doesn’t happen and we’ve changed our behaviour we’re ok. If it does happen and we haven’t changed our behaviour we’re screwed sooner. What is the harm in not being wasteful? What is the harm in being more frugal with fossil fuel use? Does it mean that some people loose their jobs? Is job loss better than planet loss? Answer that question. Seriously, answer it. Is the loss of some peoples jobs preferably to the loss of the whole planet? Don’t talk about politicians, vested interests or agendas, just answer the basic questions. Once we work out the basics we can move forward.

    • January 31, 2012 at 10:45 am

      I don’t have a problem with being frugal personally, but the planet is not at stake here, billions and possibly trillions of misspent dollars and highly authoritarian political ambitions are at stake.

      Even in the unlikely event that climate models are correct, a few degrees of warming and some extra CO2 in the atmosphere is more likely to be beneficial than harmful. That’s basic thermodynamics.

      If we prepare for climate change, then our preparations must include the possibility of global cooling. In which case, given where we are technically, we have to continue exploiting fossil fuels and nuclear power while researching other possibilities – which may take decades.

      While doing the research, we cannot afford to waste resources on absurd, futile and dangerously authoritarian posturing.

Comments are closed.