We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Environmental news from Canada Ezra Levant:
There are about 100 professional anti-oilsands activists in Canada, who do nothing but attack Canada’s oil industry. Typically they pose as grassroots environmentalists. But the facts are different.
Most environmental activists are actually paid professionals. And most work for foreign lobbyists.
He is talking only of Canada, but even so, it puts a whole different slant on things, doesn’t it? Read the rest of the piece for a few details.
I also think it puts a different slant on the constantly heard – and utterly ridiculous – claim that in the absence of Old School Dead Tree Media news reporting, there will no longer be any news, just bloggers blogging and twitterers twittering, about nothing.
There will still be plenty of news. But it may be somewhat different news.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Sadly it is not just so called environmentalists or overseas (rival) commercial interests – although (doubtless) certain governments in the Middle East would pay well for anything that harmed the Canadian oil – oil/shale industry.
It is also certain large companies in Canada (whose short sighted greed can only see how useful regulations would be to put small indepedent operators out of business – failing to see that regulation would end up strangleing the big corporations also).
And, of course, the “usual suspects” the network of people that makes up the establisment/elite and who work to destroy both free markets and national (as well as inidividual) independence – for “the good of all” of course.
For example, the vile Economist magazine has had a campaign to regulate the Canadian industry for years.
The Economist magazine writers are not paid by OPEC (or whoever) to do this, they do it becaue they think it is the good thing to do.
Control (by an educated elite) is good, and environmental control is double good.
The fact that (contrary to Agenda 21 and the rest of the ravings of the international elite/establishment) PRIVATE PROPERTY is the way to protect the environment, totally escapes them.
Remember that “Sustainable Development” is just another term for the whole “Social Justice” agenda.
Collectivism (the denial of private property and its replacement by communalism and communitarianism) pretending to be freedom.
And globelism pretending to be localism (“get organized at a local level” but only as long as people OBEY the commands and ojectivists set for them – this is Cas Susteen “Nudge” style “choice” the choice of how best to follow the whims of your masters, with elections reduced to a choice of different faces for the same policy).
And already in operation.
For example, local councils (in most Western countries – including the United States and Britain, doubtless Canada also) are all already operating to try and put the aims of such thngs as Agenda 21 into operation.
“Paranoia Paul”.
Accept (that as Mr Levant points out) the Tides Foundation (and other such groups) is spending hundreds of millions of Dollars on this stuff.
Tides Foundation – funded by George Soros and others of his kind. People who are very rich, but who despise “money making” which they regard as corrupt and despicable (perhaps the way they made their money was – I am just pointing out that this is their attitude, and perhaps it is based on personal experience).
These rich “capitalists” help fund every major Communist group in the United States (“Communist” is not too harsh a word – after all Van Jones, J. Rogers and many others who control these organizations ADMIT to being Marxists). And I am sure the same is true for Canada (plus taxpayer funding – in both countries, and here in Britain).
However, it is very unlikely that Soros and co are Communists themselves – and not because of their actions in Eastern Europe (although the funding of dissent turns out to have been more the corrupting of dissent – turning pro freedom movements into slaves of “social justice” and the European Union). No Soros and so on represent something much older than Marxism.
They represent the view that society should be under the control of a “wise” elite (themselves and the young people they bring in to the fold – over time) ordering other folk about – “for their own good” (of course).
Francis Bacon, Plato and beyond.
And the Saudi Prince?
The Middle East is not all the same – it contains some elite members (some of whom talk – when they should stay silent), some Islamists, and some just plain greedy people who are ruthless in the methods they use.
The last sort are the least harmful – by a very long way.
“You sound like paranoid Glenn Beck”.
Well – Fox News is part owned by a Saudi Prince….. and Beck is OUT at the end of this week (inspite of having millions of viewers – and this for a 5PM show).
So perhaps he was not “paranoid” enough.
A nice little piece exposing more of the climate lobbyists using taxpayer money to influence government.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/18/lynas_greenpeace_ipcc_money_go_round/
I won’t say I don’t believe it, because I feel in my water that it is true, but believing something is true and being able to prove it are two different things.
I trained as a Lawyer and am a journalist, and I would have been fired from both jobs if I presented evidence as thin as that in Ezra’s article.
If the old Watergate saw, “Follow the money” is the correct course, then the blood money needs to be followed from Saudi and Iranian etc sources. We already know, and can prove, that the Saudi’s are funding fundamentalist madrassas on a large scale throughout the Western world, but our Govt’s seem to either not believe, or turn a blind eye to it. We know that Pakistan is in bed with terrorists whilst trousering the billions in aid America gives them, but America keeps on doing it.
So no, someone needs to do a proper investigative journalism job here. If the News of the Screws or whoever, want to hack into somebodies mobiles and emails, then have a look at the so called professional activist environmentalists bank accounts. Trace their money back to sourse and THEN you have a story.
But it is a much more difficult and dangerous job than hacking 4th rate pop stars and washed up politicians isn’t it? And I don’t see any young budding Pilgers out there with the will to do it.
RAB, Levant’s article is just an article, not a brief. He isn’t required to include definitive proof of his allegations. But in fact he does indicate at least one of his sources: “As Vivian Krause has documented, the U.S. Tides Foundation, their Canadian arm Tides Canada and other foreign foundations have pumped about $200 million into Canada to fight development of the oilsands and forestry, among other causes.” That’s more than sufficient for this purpose.
If you want to examine her evidence you’ll have to check with Krause. Levant doesn’t provide a citation, but it’s not hard to locate: (Link) The Tides Foundation has a long association with anti-tar sands activism (and environmentalism in general), and it was admittedly a primary source of funding for the critical studies. Furthermore, Tides has ties to George Soros (he funds it through his “Open Society Institute”), so given that connection I’m perfectly willing to credit Kraus’ (and Levant’s) claims. The money has been traced.
Paul, I agree the elitist Economist writers do not write their pieces to shackle western oil production for the sake of filthy lucre. They are doing it for morally elitist reasons, but, it all fits together into the comfortable superior consensus that their friends and they construct to establish their superiority.
Behind them, or mixed in with them, there will be well-spoken hard businessmen achieving their goals. And the politicians that enjoy the elegant troughs, enforcing policies for “good, worthy and sensible” reasons.
Part of the sleight of hand they do, I think, is fooling most people into thinking it is West against East, or Saudis against Americans.
It is elites of all cultures, a ruling elite in the overarching financial co-operation, against the plebs.
Occasionally, perhaps, one of the elite does break away, and winds up like the Shah of Iran.
Regarding the possibilities of oil production in the west, as mentioned before, I have read from a source that I would be inclined to trust, that there are oil wells drilled and capped on the northern coast of Alaska just waiting to deliver.
I am wondering what will happen with Israel, now that it has its own oilfield.
Ian F4, are the climate change lobbyists not just the government, the elites, at work providing the rationale for their established and desired course of action?
Sorry Laird, but tracing it back to Soros doesn’t cut it as far as the main thrust of the article is concerned.
The professional environmentalist movement is neither Canadian nor grassroots. It’s foreign, professional and well funded.
It may not be funded directly by Saudi Arabia — we have no evidence of that.
And that’s the evidence I want. Soros is a Socialist Financier and hedge funder with his own twisted reasons for meddling with his quite considerable fortune.
None of that linked article traces back to a major (or even Minor) OPEC self interested country, and that was the thrust of Ezra’s piece.
That’s what standing up an article is all about, otherwise it is just conjecture, a puff piece of speculation.
Like I said, I tend to believe it, but it needs proof.
“I am wondering what will happen with Israel, now that it has its own oilfield.”
Well, there is no oil field yet. Environment activists, supported by the cabinet minister for the environment, have filed at the supreme court a demand for an injunction against the oil project.
Our supreme court is opinionated and meddlesome, and might well grant such an injunction, leaving the oil underground.
The aim of the environmentalists (tree huggers) is to stop all development projects. All of them.
Trying to discredit them as foreign agents misses the point. They are ideologues, not foreign agents. You need to fight their ideology, not expose (dubiously) their funding.
Ah, RAB, I missed your point. I thought you were doubting the “professional environmentalists” part, not the “Saudi money” part.
But Levant doesn’t say that it’s Saudi money. In fact, he specifically says “It may not be funded directly by Saudi Arabia — we have no evidence of that.” He merely points out that the Saudis have a clear, vested interest in stopping “alternative” oil sources. You’re welcome to draw your own conclusions.
For the sake of argument lets say the enviro-luddites succeed and the northern half of the western hemisphere (the only part actually capable of eeeeevilllllllllll, apparently) is stopped from pillaging the planet. Down the road the Saudis run dry, Hugo runs dry, pretty much everywhere else runs dry. And there they are, the eeeevilllllll norte americanos sitting on all that stuff we shall not name. It might just be worth it to put up with all this totalitarian self-absorbed infantile puling until the iron law of unintended consequences sticks it in their fourth point of contact.
Sorry laird, I often think I am being perfectly clear, when apparently I’m not.
But the implication of the article, from the title, on down to the seventh or eighth paragraph, strongly implies that the Saudi’s, Iranians, Russia etc are funding the professional environmentalists for their own selfish interests by backdoor means.
The Professional Environmentalists don’t get a mention till after then. I’m pretty convinced he’s right, and yes I have drawn my own conclusions, but someone has to do the spadework and prove it. Educated guesses and supposition will not suffice, to expose this duplicity to a mass audience, will it? That’s all I was saying really.
Fair point, RAB.
RAB
Part of the problem is that Ezra trained as a lawyer, and is now involved in the news media. Plus, you over look his argument:
On the other hand, there’s always: ezra@ezralevant.com
Cheers
I get your real message, Jacob- you hate trees! Let’s chop them all down! Then nobody could engage in promiscuous treesomes!
John B, – agreed (although the Emperor of Iran did not break away from the elite – he followed every bit of crack brained advice they gave him “The White Revolution”, that was his downfall).
RAB – you are calling for an investigative press that no longer really exists in the United States (I do not know about Canada).
The “scientific journalism” crowd took over long ago (led by the New York Times – which often even sets the lead for the nightly news broadcasts, yes they often report on the stories of the previous day).
The hard nosed reporter out seeking the truth (wherever it leads – and whoever it offends) is virtually dead.
Matt Drudge dresses as they used to dress (the hat and so on) – partly in jest, but also to honour the memory of real reporters.
Even when the msm get a story put into their laps (they can not find stuff out for themselves – they do not know how) their politics will not allow them to use it.
For example, people gave information to the New York Times about Barack Obama and it (of course) sat on the information.
The LA Times even has a tape of the farewell party for Rashid Khaldi.
It would be very interesting to watch this tape – as it has Barack Obama speaking (we know that much).
Do his words contain anything that would cast light on the de facto alliance between the Marxists and the “Islamic Socialists” in American universities and political life?
We will never know – because the LA Times (of course) would not release the tape.
Not in 2008 and not since.
I will be blunt – people who give material to the msm (or try and attract their attention to a story) are FOOLS.
Give the information to Matt Druge, or to Andrew Breitbart (“biggovernment.com”, or to Glenn Beck (The Blaze, or Glenn Beck “television”)
But a big media organization – forget-about-it.
Remember there are even leftists (and a lot of weak willed people) in Fox News and Fox Business – send information to an organization (rather than to an independent person) and you had better expect it to be “lost”.
How can you tell someone who will really track down a story (or at least try to).
Partly their political opinions – if they are opposed to big government they may be interested in anti big government stories.
But also character – and how do you tell if they are strong of heart?
Easy.
Is there are vast smear campaign against them?
There is not against us (because we are not important – sorry lads we are no threat to anyone), but when someone becomes important (a real threat to the left) then a never ending torrent of smears comes there way – from every source one can think of.
Everyone has a few enemies – but only people who matter have vast networks of enemies (most of whom know nothing about the person they are attacking – and are just following the line).
Not prepared to have your name turned into a curse word?
Not prepared to have your own children taught to hate you (by their college lecturers and so on)?
Then stay out of the game.
Only people who are prepared to sacrifice EVERYTHING can really oppose the left.
Paul,
This might seem OT but it isn’t. One of the things that makes me reach for the remote when there is a “science” documentary on TV is the stock phrase, “scientific detective story”. Science doesn’t work like detection. Detection isn’t a science either.
That’s not a criticism of detectives. Knowing exactly the right time to deploy a joke when wooing a sexual partner isn’t a science either, or writing great ghost story, or making a Pavlova, or exposing the next Watergate or playing a guitar riff.
As someone scientifically educated this annoys me. It annoys me because the idea is that all true knowledge is “scientific”. No, sorry, I mean something deeper and nastier than that. It is implying that soley by adding numbers and a caculus to an issue it makes it scientific and therefore true. OK, someone has diabetes – well they will test their blood sugar levels. This means something physiological. That is science. I saw GPs and similar about my bad-back and was asked to rate my pain on a scale of 1-10. Does that mean anything? I’ll tell you why it doesn’t. It isn’t just that pain is subjective (though it is) but how annoying is pain? It is vastly more annoying when trying to do exams than it is when selling ice-creams on the pier. Or acne. How annoying is that? Depends if you are going to work graveyard shift in a back-office job or you have a hot date that night doesn’t it?
How serious is a cold? Less serious than cancer? No. Not if you are around a cancer sufferer on various forms of chemotherapy. Catching your cold might be very serious for them. I only learned that this year.
We as a society do this all the time. We think numbers nail stuff down even if, in the context, they are totally useless and indeed actually less than useless because they give a false notion of being “scientific” and therefore “true”.I mean it’s like surveys. I might “strongly disagree” with something for totally different reasons to some other person. Or indeed myself last week. Here’s an example. UK railway privatisation. I strongly disagreed with that. Not because I believe it ought to have been kept in state hands. Oh no! Because I thought the separation of infrastructure from train operators was a disaster waiting to happen. And I was right.
Science has enormous power but when used in the wrong context it is worse than useless.
Natural science is indeed vitally important Nick – and, as you say, knowing what is science and what is not is vital.
A lack of real knowledge of science leaves people (people like ME) in a state of ignorance – dangerious ignorance.
For example, how I am to judge whether the theory of man made globel warming is true?
A lot of people round here tell me it is false – and point at fraud practiced by some supporters of the theory.
But it is perfectly possible for people to practice fraud (“overegg the pudding a bit” is most likely what the fraudsters told themselves they were doing) and for the basic theory still to be true.
Also a lot of the debate is essentially POLITICAL.
People “on the left” (and this includes Cameron and co) love the theory because (to them) it gives a good reason for statism (which they love) – vast “high speed rail” schemes, endless regulations controlling every aspect of the lives of ordinary people (even down to what light bulb one can buy), and endless propaganda campaigns and events.
And people who hate all this – hate the theory as well.
But what if the theory is true, and it is just that the political reaction to it (what the politicians and administrators do in response to the theory) is absurdly wrong headed and counter productive?
(such as “reducing C02 emissions” by, in reality, taking rubbish from Britain and shipping it thousands of miles to be put into landfill – which, of course, means vastly MORE C02 emissions than putting it in landfill here without the shipping it thousands of miles to the Far East for fake “recycling”).
I repeat I have no way to know – because I have no grap of basic science.
And the men and women of science line up and tell me opposing (totally opposing) things.