Sunday, 28 December 2014

These policies were considered extreme before the 21st century, and still are

Back in the 70s the Ecology Party (as the Green Party was originally called) had a fairly specific agenda, little adopted or accepted by any others in the mainstream. Occasionally a left wing party with a large majority brought in eye watering taxes on the rich, but otherwise besides the basics protecting the people from dirty coal plants and factories the policies were fairly fringe and considered extreme by most outside their own field.

Wind things to the 21st century and then look at the list of policies I was describing back then and ask yourself why they are now actually mainstream and considered essential by the majority of politicians and voters. The policies themselves are well known, the question is what happened in the last 30 years before 2000 that made them leave the far extremes and become adopted worldwide, surely if they were that far out then then they always will be?

Green Party history (UK) My comments below in brackets

The ten core values set out by the Green Party policy document can be summarised as follows:[13]
  • Commitment to social and environmental justice, supporting a "radical transformation of society for the benefit of all, and for the planet as a whole". The threats to economic, social and environmental wellbeing are considered "part of the same problem" and can only be solved as one complete problem.
  • ('...can only be solved as one complete problem' as stated by the UN when referring to global warming, as individual countries cannot be trusted to work alone, a new level of lawmaking and taxation must be brought in. As has taken place in the EU and worldwide wherever Agenda 21 was accepted (over 200 countries).
  • Preservation of other species, because the human race "depends on the diversity of the natural world for its existence".
  • "A sustainable society" to guarantee humanity's long-term future, given that physical resources are finite.
  • (now accepted as law by all countries adopting Agenda 21 in those exact words. Green policy is now world policy)
  • "Basic material security" as a universal, permanent entitlement.
  • Actions to "take account of the wellbeing of other nations, other species, and future generations", not advancing "our well-being to the detriment of theirs".(See UN comment above)
  • "Voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination", as the basis of a "healthy society". (UN Agenda 21 change agents are now employed directly to carry out these policies and trained by local colleges to inflitrate local governments and apply the regulations directly)
  • Decisions to be made "at the closest practical level to those affected by them" to "emphasise democratic participation andaccountability".(see ICLEI site to see this in practise directly)
  • Non-violent solutions to conflict, seeking lasting settlement, taking into account "the interests of minorities and future generations". (future generations are the meme introduced to persuade innocent people to vote in present hardships to save future generations from global warming. Such PR propaganda techniques come straight from Edward Bernays/Goebbels and are used directly by Green Party activists to influence charities and academic organisations to adopt their views and spread them through the media).
  • End the use of "narrow economic indicators" to measure society's success. Instead "take account of factors affecting thequality of life for all people: personal freedomsocial equity, health, happiness and human fulfilment". (ie drop known measurements used to assess the economy and allow total chaos, but deny it as they no longer measure actual accounts. Only socialists are concerned with equality. Few parties see individuals as unequal but only socialists want to keep their lives equal as well as their persons).
  • Use "a variety of methods, including lifestyle changes, to help effect progress", in addition to electoral politics. (lifestyle changes are not the concern of politicians, if they hurt no one then it's not for anyone to impose from outside, ergo they support totalitarian measures)

Now these policies are not unique to the Greens, but the focus on the environment is. Otherwise many overlap with basic Trotskyist and Marxist parties with absolutely no influence such as the Socialist Workers Party and Worker's Revolutionary Party. But their economic policies have somehow now become accepted as aspirations for both the UN and all parties up to centre-right now, and would not be considered at all extreme compared to many national policies worldwide.

I never make accusations without evidence (legal training), here are the similar list of Socialist Worker's Party, still considered far left and extreme:

They must have had some sort of training as their official site is fairly reasonable and actually more acceptable than the Labour Party's, but the clues remain to point to their real agenda however hard they've worked to clean up their image:

  • Major research and investment into replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and into ending the problems of early obsolescence and unrecycled waste.
  • Oppose discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, disability, sexuality, age, and all other forms of prejudice. (this is already embodied in British law virtually exhaustively. As they aim to impose more one can only conclude that they will simply bring in forms of 'affirmative action' ie favouring the minorities against everyone else, and banning speech considered to breach the existing laws rather than restrict it to causing direct harm.
  • For the right to asylum. No to racist immigration laws. (presumably all immigration laws must be considered racist so no immigration laws at all)
  • Tax the super-rich! For a socialist government to take into public ownership the top 150 companies and banks that dominate the British economy, and run them under democratic working-class control and management. Compensation to be paid only on the basis of proven need. (that's a given of course)
  • No to the bosses' neo-liberal European Union! For a socialist Europe and a socialist world! (they give with one hand by opposing EU membership and take away with the other by replacing it with something almost the same and covering the entire world. Like the UN plans in fact. 

  • They can't hide their real motives, they draw you in with pretty standard reasonable plans, and then as you yawn and press 'join the party' as if you support the left and deplore New Labour's drift to the centre you may have finally found a traditionally socialist party. But be patient and read right to the end, and all they want is a socialist (as do the Greens) world (as do the Greens) with a massive restriction on free speech and emphasis on the environment over all other economic activity. Not that different in the end really.
  • Finally compare with a few direct from the UN:
  • Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections:
    • Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
    The implementation of Agenda 21 was intended to involve action at international, national, regional and local levels. Some national and state governments have legislated or advised that local authorities take steps to implement the plan locally, as recommended in Chapter 28 of the document. These programs are often known as "Local Agenda 21" or "LA21".[3] For example, in the Philippines, the plan is "Philippines Agenda 21" (PA21). The group, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, formed in 1990; today its members come from over 1,000 cities, towns, and counties in 88 countries and is widely regarded as a paragon of Agenda 21 implementation.
How different exactly is this from two of the most extreme parties we have in Britain? It is almost as if the two have shared their meetings and adopted very similar plans and aims, but unlike the other two, the UN can and actually are carrying it out, despite the fact few sane people in any countries would vote the others in with enough support to influence, let alone run the government. Yet we have those policies anyway. Terrifying, isn't it.

No comments:

Post a Comment