A few weeks ago I found myself over lunch reading a piece written by one David Condon of “the local chapter of the Council of Canadians” titled “A green new deal”. Considering what I have heard about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes’s plan of the same name, I tensed when I read the headline. I knew this wasn’t going to be good.
Thankfully, Condon’s article did not start throwing around dollar figures in the trillions or suggest rewilding most of the country. However, I found the “Green New Deal” as discussed by this Mr David Condon to be philosophically incoherent, and in need of a stern rebuttal.
Of course, being as how we at the Council of European-Canadians operate outside the window of commonly-acceptable discourse, I didn’t expect that any adequate rebuttal I could submit to the Medicine Hat News would be published. I may perhaps email the editor with my response anyway.
The first half of the article is a lot of opinion and fluff – nothing more substantial than a second-rate (or lower) politician would say at a campaign rally. Where the article gets interesting for us is in Condon’s bullet points:
- Addressing science and Indigenous knowledge by implementing a plan to reduce municipal emissions by at least 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050.
What on God’s green earth is “Indigenous knowledge”?? Knowledge, if I were to define it, does not have a culture (although it can be incorporated into it), an ethnicity, or a sex.
Oh, wait, he means knowledge as discovered and used by Indigenous peoples of Canada, doesn’t he? Mr Condon has thus opened the door to the idea that knowledge can be grown out of an ethno-cultural garden. I believe, because of the precedent this man has set, that I can now declare most of the knowledge that has made a tangible difference in the world to be “white knowledge”, given that people of European extraction have disproportionately been responsible for knowledge creation!
But of course, I know the reality of where the frames of the window of discourse are set. I know that merely acknowledging our peoples’ extraordinary history of knowledge creation is now probably classified as “hate speech”. By contributing to the CEC and standing on the side of truth, I am a member of a “hate group”. I thus will quote Ayn Rand (an author I disagree with as much as I agree with) when I say “If this is vice, I wish no virtue.”
- Reducing inequality by using available municipal revenue generation tools while requesting additional tools from other levels of government, which will also help pay for a local Green New Deal.
When he discusses “revenue tools”, he can only mean two things: government corporations, and/or levies. Considering the dozens of billions of dollars that has been scared away from Canada by investors who don’t want to risk their money in our Liberal-governed markets, it’s understandable that municipal governments may end up cleaning up that mess.
Also notice the classic socialist slogan “reducing inequality”. It is more of a concern of theirs that there be an equal sharing of misery, rather than actually trying to increase life quality for everybody. Of course, if the populace is convinced that there is an impending ecological disaster, it is easier for the enviro-socialists to convince us to voluntarily abandon our standard of living in order to better fit the realignment of society in ways they see fit.
- Actively supporting the expansion of good, unionized, low carbon jobs and public services to build a greener local economy.
Read through this carefully. It’s short, but meaningful. I see in this an expression of a desire for public-sector employment over private-sector employment. It is the state, not the private sector, that is able to eat the losses associated with the inefficiencies of handling both green economics and noisy labour unions. Unionised public-sector labour is pernicious for public finances, in that it can agitate for higher wages now at the expense of the future generations of taxpayers. Private-sector corporations have to make hard decisions on cutting back services and/or cutting staff in order to keep balanced budgets. Unlike the state, private companies cannot vote themselves higher credit limits indefinitely.
Indigenous Rights = Taking Rights of Whites
- Respecting Indigenous rights and treaties.
How does this figure into environmentalism at any level? This has no relation to the ecosystem – it relates to ethno-nationalism and legalities.
I suppose it means, as has been for some time, that an action taken by an Indigenous person or First Nations government is interpreted differently from an identical action conducted by a person or entity outside that ethno-cultural sphere.
I ask you: does a bowhead whale or polar bear really care if he is killed by a Japanese for-profit corporation, or a rich white man on a trophy hunt, as opposed to being killed by an Indigenous person claiming the hunt as part of his ancestral culture? The whales, the bears, and the seals are either alive, or they’re dead. They are not somehow “less dead” because their slaughter is excused on the account of being part of somebody’s traditional way of life. It is not the business of any government in Canada to endorse indigenous animist spirituality.
- Ensuring accessible, affordable, and safe housing, free public transit, and food security.
How could anybody disagree with accessible, affordable, and safe housing? I certainly don’t. But many holes can be easily poked in this statement:
Who builds this housing? Well, we can imagine Condon wouldn’t count on the private sector to build it, or to own it. He must be making reference to British-style council housing, or Warsaw Pact type prefabricated apartment blocks. (Have you seen Soviet apartment blocks? The biggest country in the world, but only about three styles of apartment, many of them built in sections going on for several blocks)
Notice too the descriptors: accessible, affordable, and safe. No mention is made of practicality or comfort.
Who decides who gets to live in this housing? Left-wing activist boards of directors? Undoubtedly. If that is the case, then we can expect the same type of discrimination that occurs for job-seekers under the employment equity voluntary disclosure: women, “Visible Minorities”, persons with disabilities, and First Nations/Metis/Inuit get top priority.
But if a non-disabled white man needs a roof over his head? “Sucks to be you”, they say.
|Drug and Rape infested immigrant apartments in England|
We have already seen in the United Kingdom what happens when bored and unemployed “Visible Minority” men are cooped up in publicly-owned apartment blocks with disadvantaged women as their neighbours. They form gangs which loiter in hallways and around entrances, intimidating people (especially lone women) who have to pass by them. Some of them begin to engage in the drug trade, and some have even been known to seize upon these lone women and create sex-slave rings.
Nothing is Free
To move on to the next part of this bullet point: “free public transit”. There is no such thing as “free public transit”, or “free education”, or “free healthcare”. Everything comes with a price – whether it is paid upfront by users, paid by users through their taxes, or paid by government borrowing. Of course, the leftist slogans of “free [place utility or service here]” really means to them something that is not paid upfront by users. But the money has to come from somewhere: the drivers of public transit need to be paid. The mechanics who work on the public transit vehicles need to be paid. The operations managers need a source of funds with which to buy fuel and parts for the public transit vehicles. Where does it come from? Corporate tax? Well, that’s already out, because corporations are leaving Canada at record rates, due to the one-two punches of threats of increased tax rates along with reduced revenue outlooks in the Canadian market. What about taking on more public debt? That only will work until the state is unable to afford the interest payments to service the debt. Actually paying the debt off is out of all realm of possibility. Once the employees of public services stop receiving their paycheques, they lose their incentive to come to work. Finding other means of survival becomes their priority.
To the final part of this bullet point: “food security”. Nothing I have ever seen in any environmentalist plan has ever convinced me that it would increase food security. Shaming cattle ranchers for the supposed climate disaster they are causing from the flatulence of their livestock is not going to increase food security. Making business more expensive for farmers by taxing the fuel which powers their equipment and taxing foodstuffs for not being organically-farmed does nothing to increase food security. Denormalising an omnivorous diet (a diet which is proven by a scientific analysis of human dentition to be natural and healthy for us) and forcing us to become more dependent on a small list of approved foods does nothing to increase food security.
- Reducing corporate influence on local decision-making, particularly by developers, to enhance local democracy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction efforts, as well as opposing privatization.
My suspicion from the third bullet point is confirmed: Condon is hostile to the private-sector. How, pray tell, does he propose to tangibly reduce corporate influence? Moreover, is he oblivious that corporate influence and investment might actually have real benefits for the entire country? Pension-holders, owners of mutual funds, owners of stocks, private-sector employees – these are all people too, who pay taxes and contribute to our society. They are not somehow subhuman when juxtaposed to union bosses and public-sector employees.
Migrant Justice = Opening Borders of White Countries to Migrants
- Upholding equity, anti-racism and migrant justice in municipal policies.
This bullet point is the most absurd of them all. Firstly, it has absolutely no relation to environmentalism. Its only purpose appears to be to poke the eyes of people like me and the readers at CEC.
We already know, even before I mentioned it in the example of council housing boards, what “equity” means in the leftist dictionary; it means a systemic discrimination against white males (generally the most capable and most invested people in Canadian society).
I am curious what he is tangibly looking for municipalities to do to promote “anti-racism”. We can flip to the “A”s section of the modern leftist dictionary and again find that in practical purposes, “anti-racism” is (as cliché as it has become in the circles readers of the CEC associate with) a code word for “anti-white”. If all these things were applied equally, Jess Allen would have been immediately terminated by CTV for her racism and sexism against white boys.
“Migrant justice” is the richest of all of these. I think immediately of the UN Migration Pact – a globalist revolutionary precedent that seeks to make travel to and residence anywhere a human right. Naturally, only a select number of governments will be implementing policies to fulfil this ambition. You can be damned sure that the PRC is not going to allow Turkic peoples of the former Soviet states of western Asia to migrate to western China to rally for the freedom of their kin who are being persecuted, imprisoned, and brainwashed by the Communist Party of China. You can be damned sure that Pakistan is not going to allow Hindus to freely immigrate to their Islamic Republic. But I do imagine that if the far-left in Iceland ever gain a plurality of power, a floodgate of migration of Middle-Eastern males will be opened. Their excuse, of course, will be the fact that Iceland has a disproportionate number of females to males, and that Icelanders are having increasing difficulty finding a spouse with whom they are not closely related.
To attempt to draw a link between pro-environmentalism and what Condon terms “migrant justice” is a long shot. One would think that, if these folks were truly concerned about the environment, they would want to end immigration to Canada entirely, regardless of where the immigrants come from. Equatorial countries produce proportionately less pollution per person than polar countries, given the greater amount of sunshine and thus life there is less energy-intensive. But no. The softcore anti-white pogroms that are in vogue with all areas of the modern Left take precedence.
No New Pipelines?
- Rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure and committing to expanding local installation of renewable energy sources.
In other words, “no new pipelines” – a dogma of the environmentalist movement. Note especially the flippantly formal verb: “reject”. To “reject new fossil fuel infrastructure”, in a world that is dependent on fossil fuels for modern life, is not an equivalent to rejecting, say, hors d’oeuvres at a family Christmas gathering. To reject fossil fuel infrastructure is more akin to a diabetic rejecting insulin injections. It is not a matter of “shall I choose Option A or Option B?” – it is a matter of “take the bitter pill, or you die”. Period. The technology does not currently exist to completely transition off of fossil fuels, any more so than cellular telephones (invented in 1946) were ready to replace landline telephones in the 1950s. It will take several decades worth of research, education, training, infrastructure planning, insuring, and constructing before we are ready to transition to a “zero-carbon” society. In fact, if we want to be literal about it, we will never have a zero-carbon society. With every exhale of our breath, and every campfire we light, we release carbon dioxide. And that is alright; the amount of carbon gases reduced by the natural movement of Earth’s tectonic plates is far greater than anything released by human activity.
I hope your eyes are not aching too much from all the eye-rolling you may have been doing from reading David Condon’s article. I believe I have given enough evidence here in this article to point to a conclusion that a Canadian “Green New Deal” amounts to as much or more of a political disenfranchisement and a financial gore wound to the Euro-Canadian community as it does to any anticipated ecological impact. Thanks for reading.