Scoff scoff scoff. There is no global conspiracy to get One World Government. If there was, the leaders would have sent a memo to Bob Brown to be quiet, to Scientific American to rephrase the agenda, and to Richard Black to stay out of group photos at socialist events. So there is no central command, no invisible patriarch who pulls all the strings. But clearly there is a whole class of people who “know” what you need better than you do, and they know you need more governing. The regulating class. Shhhh.
First, the red shade of Black
Blacks Whitewash has caught Richard Black (paid by the British taxpayer to be an impartial science reporter) taking an active part in a meeting of people who want to influence government policies. Quoting BlacksWhitewash:
“So the Outreach Group advises UNEP and it looks at how unelected NGO’s can better use the information within the GEO reports to pressure Governments. In the Network 2015 document there is a photo of the Outreach Group at the San Sebastian meeting:
There, behind a Felix Dodds and an Esther Larranaga, is Richard Black, BBC journalist, a publicly funded broadcaster with a duty to remain impartial, in the middle of an advisory process that seeks to influence Government decisions. There with the full knowledge and agreement of the BBC.”
Imagine we had BBC reporters sitting in on, say, Heartland Institute meetings (with hypothetically — coal-industry-activists in the room too). How the MSM journalists would howl, if they caught him “being one of the team”, explaining how to get messages out, and how to push an agenda. (And bear in mind it is not a true equivalence, comparing NGO-green-activists with Heartland. The latter use private money (not government grants) and promote policies that reduce taxes and the burden on individuals, where as the UNEP and co always want the opposite, and do it with taxpayer help as well. Which group poses a greater threat to the public? Which group needs great scrutiny?)
Black is supposed to serve the taxpayer, yet he is using the position and support the taxpayer has given him to assist groups who are pushing a controversial proposal for highly expensive, onerous policies that will give these groups and their “friends” more power, and more money, all at the expense of the people Black is supposed to represent.
The BBC Charter states that it is supposed to “…do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality…”. How could Black point out flaws in their arguments when he spends so much time helping them craft their message and so little time with the people who point out the flaws?
Blacks Whitewash points out this is a long ongoing pattern, and that Black has been involved since 2007 in repeat meetings, and that he does not just attend but delivers presentations like this: “Media – Lessons from the WSSD and the Obama Campaign - Richard Black, BBC Environment Correspondent”. Read it all, it’s an excellent post.
Second, the red shade of Brown
Bob Brown meanwhile demonstrates that he is not obeying orders from a smart well-funded global master — no money master would tell him to announce that maybe there are no aliens out there because they keep killing themselves with bad environmental policies. Bob Brown is such an intellectual feather-weight, he can’t even imagine any alternative to global government:
For those who oppose global democracy the challenge is clear: how else would you manage human affairs in this new century of global community, global communications and shared global destiny? Recently, when I got back to bed at Liffey after ruminating under the stars for hours on this question, Paul enquired, ‘did you see a comet?’ ‘Yes’, I replied, ‘and it is called ‘Global Democracy’.
Memo to Bob: we want democracy for all too, but we want 200 separate democracies that compete across the globe, not one distant-pretender-democracy that reduces the whole world to the lowest common denominator. Yours is the short term simplistic trip to hell. Governments go bad eventually, and when they do, we want to the choice to move to freer lands. When one world government goes off, there is no escape, no organized opposition. It’s just malevolent tyranny writ large — the Planet of Pol Pot.
Bob offers us a fairyland and a false dilemma: “So what’s it to be: democracy or guns? I plunk for democracy.”
Democracy or Guns eh? Someone should tell Bob about the fledgling nation which enshrined guns in it’s constitution — precisely so the people would always be armed against tyrannical rulers — and went on to be one of the longest running most successful democracies in history of the planet? Perhaps he hasn’t heard of the United States of America and their 2nd Amendment?
Remember, this man currently has a powerful controlling influence over one of the other long running democracies in the world.
…let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value.
Chris Kenny is right. Brown’s Speech deserves greater scrutiny. Why won’t “our” ABC publish the video they took of it? Better at spin control, eh? Communism has killed more people than all the world wars combined, yet Bob Brown thinks the best outcome is some combination of “communism” and “capitalism”.
Read Browns speech: it’s an intellectual wilderness. His fourth goal is… not freedom, not food, not happiness, but …wait for it, “eternity”. Figure that. The light bulb went off in his head, but he was blinded by the flash.
“Eternity is for as long as we could be. It means beyond our own experience. It also means ‘forever’, if there is no inevitable end to life. Let’s take the idea of eternity and make it our own business. The pursuit of eternity is no longer the prerogative of the gods: it is the business of us all, here and now.”
Now just because there is no shadowy sinister ruler giving out orders, doesn’t mean there isn’t a class of worthless self-serving freeloaders, who claw for power and money and cheer on the useful idiots who help them on the way.
h/t: Thanks to Ian and Don