Jacob's Soap Box

12 May, 2009

As of  Monday 4^th may 2009, supermarket plastic bags are banned in the state of South Australia (capital: Adelaide). Like it or loath it, it is another landmark win for the green social engineers.

In fact this is a win for emotional mediocrity, shallowness, ignorance and stupidity of the South Australian public that allow itself to be anaesthetised by morally corrupt journalists and their editors. Not to be overly harsh on the South Australian public, I am certain that, had it been another state, the results would have been the same – no one would hit the streets with banners because of shopping plastic bags.

But plastic bags are not the real issue, they are only a stage the takeover of our lives by the social engineers in the name of the environment.

Was it only me? I listen to an interview on the ABC Radio (no relation to the American media organisation with the same name) with the South Australian Environment Minister, whose name escapes me and not sufficiently important to look it up, that proudly bragged that ” now the landfills of South Australia have been saved” (or words to that affect).

Let me just put it in proportion; South Australia is nearly one and a half times the size of Texas (1.4 to be precise) with a population of 1.6 million, or 6.6% that of Texas. Take off 1.1 million people who live in Adelaide that leaves 400,000 people, who mostly live in coastal towns, for the rest of the state and a vast empty desert for hundreds of miles – saving landfills? Who are they kidding?

But wait a minute, by law we are required, at least here, to wrap our house refuse in plastic bags. Most people indeed re-use shopping bags for that very purpose which means that from now on, in South Australia, shoppers have to buy plastic bags to wrap their garbage in. How do landfills get to be saved with purpose purchased plastic bags as distinct from the re-used shopping variety? Anyone? Anyone?

Lesson number one; environmentalists do not care about contradictions in their massages.

On this very issue, it is some 25 years since the paper bags were banned because they damaged the environment, “save the forest” the echo-Whacko told us, yet if you do not wish to buy the “green” shopping bags in South Australia you will be supplied with … wait for it! … paper bags!

How about Dr (PhD on butterflies) Paul Erlich, the guru of population control who wrote in his book “The Population Explosion” in 1968 that, unless drastic measures are taken to limit population growth, by 1980 there will be insufficient food for all of us. We are nearly 30 year past that point and the social engineers are gearing up to fight …. oh no! Obesity!

* * * * *

Let me see, the environmental message is about pollution, right?

How many of you think that the atmosphere is more polluted now that it was 30 years ago? If you do you are wrong! By all yardsticks that measure pollutants in the air, such as the level of ozone (O₃), Carbon Monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), lead and others in the atmosphere, the air quality in the in the developed countries is much higher than it was thirty years ago despite the increase in number of motor vehicles (40% in the USA) during that time.

Yes, the air in the USA and in Australia got cleaner during the tenures of George Bush and John Howard (respectively) but do not expect the media to admit that by all impartial accounts the air quality in the USA in the Bush years was better than in the Clinton’s tenure. In fact the media along with the environmental industry tell you the exact opposite.

Lesson number two; the environmental message is not necessarily true, as a matter of fact it is a pack of lies most of the time.

Greg Easterbrook, an environmental writer, asked a New York Times’ journalist why is it that the paper knowingly misleading the public and allows environmental “news” that otherwise would be edited out as sheer lies? the public would become complacent [about the environment] was the answer. You see my friends, the elitist journalistic profession do not trust you with the truth they need to chew it for you before serving it but what else is new Charlie?

The so-called profession is no longer about impartial reporting, it is about pushing a left an agenda. A left wing agenda supporting the liberal left.

Lesson number three; environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment all to do with social engineering.

In order to facilitate social change, the social engineers need to create a crisis. When people feel threatened they are more likely to agree, or at least no object, to more government control – this is what it is all about, CONTROL!

Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation over policy disagreements provides us with some insight into the movement. In May 2000 he said in the Daily mail that:

“…we have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.

In other words, the movement select unwinnable issues, such as global warming, that enable the perpetuity of their very existence with a healthy sources of publicity and funds. Take Greenpeace which was founded in 1970 primarily resist the nuclear tests in the Pacific by the USA and France – Once the international nuclear test ban can into force, Greenpeace was forced to diversify to other environmental issues to remain in business.

Why don’t you do a small experiment, walk to the nearest environmentalist and tell him or her: I see that the global temperature declined since year 2000, isn’t it great? Watch their reaction. If you think that they will be relieved that “the imminent” perils of global warming been averted, you are up for a bitter disappointment.

* * * * *

Let us examine the largest con ever perpetrated on humanity, global warming or its predecessor in name only climate change. The demonisation of inert, odourless, colourless gas that is naturally occurring in nature and comprises some 0.03% of the atmosphere as the villain that is destroying the civilisation as we know it. Oh sinful people the end is nye!

Let me see if I get it; the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? How does that work? If we go back to live as the stone age Aborigines that came to meet our First Fleet in 1788, our civilisation will be saved?

Do the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? Not at all, they want everything to stay exactly as it is. Remember, they want to fight not to win and they don’t care much for contradictions.

However, in the meantime and with the help of the liberal media, academia, our education systems and … Hollywood, they have created a monster of a propaganda machine that has the world has never seen before, the two Josephs, Stalin and Goebbels, notwithstanding.

What all these bedfellows have in common with the echo-whackos or with each others, for that matter, that they all banded together against us? The answer is simple; ANTI-CAPITALISM! Sounds familiar?

Yes, the green movement is a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. Browse the platform of the various “Green” parties and you quickly see familiar motifs straight out the Communist Manifesto. The reds did not passed away with the death of the Soviet Union, they simply grew green skins.

Now you see the mutual exclusive relation between Communism and environmentalism, every environmentalist is a Communist and every Communist is a greenie and they have one aim which is simply MORE GOVERNMENT. In order to get average Joe and Sheila Citizen to agree, or even demand, bigger government intervention in their affairs, one must create a crisis. Crisis also means more government money for the cause. More money for “research”, more money for “education” (of the public at large) of the impeding “disaster” and the “need to act” NOW!

As The White House Chief Of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently: Never let a serious crisis go to waste, much less if you have gone into the trouble of creating such crisis (the second part is my addition)..

And if we are talking about more crises and more government, who is to say that we mean our own respective sovereign governments, oh no! Global emergencies require global solution. Rather than get tangled with pesky individual constitutions, we need solutions that need not be limited by national laws. So now it is not your elected government who calls the shots, it is the United Nations the most corrupt body of unelected officials on earth who wants to rule the world from New York, Geneva or wherever.

Wait! Just before you decide that you had enough conspiracy theory here, instead of clicking the close button, how about clicking here and check out Agenda 21 and see, amongst other things, how the UN attempt to control every aspect of our lives. If you thought that your local council has to deal with the three “R”, rates, roads and rubbish, you are wrong, chapter 28 is devoted to them.

When recently I demanded to know why my local council waste my rates money on signs that call for the “saving” the Tasmanian forests, not even in my state, Agenda 21 was the answer.

This is how it works, A bunch echo-whacko official UN comes up with an idea and they push it through a committee with fancy name (you bet) till it comes out as UN treaty, declaration, resolution, protocol or agenda and however named such piece of paper that goes to individual members countries, that your country and mine.

Anonymous obscure unelected people in Rio De Janeiro (in this case) decided that my council rates should pay for the greenies agenda in Tasmania, irrespective of what I or any other rate payer think of it.

Our power grabbing politicians, of all persuasions, are happy to push it through because it gives them more powers, how often have you heard that we must adopt one paper or another because even the UN agrees with it? Now and then we see heads of states such George W Bush and John Howard who stand up and refuse to ratify a UN paper, such as the Kyoto Protocol on the ground that it is against the interests of our respective countries, but at great personal cost in term of personal hate campaign by the “companionate” greenies!

And then there is the Kyoto Protocol, a UN agreement to limit the developed (but not other) countries’ emissions by unrealistic levels thus causing untold damage to their economies for … 3% reduction in global warming by 2050. This is a conclusion of a scientist who SUPPORTS the global warming swindle.

Thomas Wigley, a senior scientist with the National Centre For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said in his article The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (scroll down) that:

Wigley concluded that the impact on projected temperature increases, with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual, would be a scant 0.06 to 0.11°C (0.11 to 0.20°F) shaved off the total warming, roughly a 3% reduction [in global warming].

[emphasis provided]

Hey, with conclusions like these who needs sceptics?

But we already know that the echo-whackos are not concerned about the planet, they want to destroy our economies by attacking the very basis for our lives, energy.

* * * * *

And if you still remain unconvinced that Kyoto was a real attempt to address a problem, albeit unproven one, please address the question why is it that countries, such as France, who rely on nuclear energy for 80% of its electricity production, nor would any other country who would go nuclear, can obtain carbon credits for their effort to reduce omission. Here we have a perfect solution, but no, the echo whackos would not have a bar of it. Of course not, if nuclear power would solve our problem, two things will happen: It will prove that carbon dioxide has no real affect on the weather and more important it will destroy the basis for their agenda – no problem no money.

Planting trees to absorb that retched carbon dioxide was originally excluded from approved activities. Can you imagine that? Turning carbon dioxide into oxygen was banned. The echo whackos later relented somehow but with a caveat, the trees must be native to the areas and MONOCULTURAL, do you get that? We are not allowed to interfere with the “culture” of the trees but we must warship multiculturalism when it comes to … people!

Our government can allow in people with culture even abhorrent to us (try “honour” killings of women for size) and we suppose to treat such culture as sacred in the name of multiculturalism but when it comes to trees, oh no! No foreigners allowed.

All of you out there with eucalyptus trees in your countries, your tree are multicultural, pull them out, they belong to us!

These people have no shame!

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009, all rights reserved.