Madeline Bunting writes at the Grauniad.
She has penned a breathtaking piece of trash; terrifying in its ignorance, its basis in illogic and bone shaking fear.
It is terrifying because she is an example of the devotees of the new secular religion of Environmentalism who are polluting our internets and taking up our time with their increasingly shrill and absurd claims.
And these shrill noises are going to get worse as more and more data emerges to destroy their false religion. They will do anything for their religion and because they are irrational and have no holy book to follow, they can change the focus of their religion at will.
First the threat to the environment was the coming of a New Ice Age. Then it was Global Warming. Now it is Climate Change. Each time, as the data shows that what they believe is not true, they change what they believe.
I have no problem with people following the religion of Environmentalism. They can believe in Santa Claus for all I care. the problem I have with the religious devotees of Environmentalism is that these people are ready and willing to make blood sacrifices on the altar of their new religion, and the blood they will be sacrificing will be yours and the families of other people.
Similar to the Malthusian “mass cull” enthusiasts Attenborogh and Porritt, Madeline Bunting wants everyone to be entered into the most fantastic and fine grained totalitarian system of absolute control in order to satisfy her insane Environmentalist agenda of complete degradation and subservience to Gaia.
These people feel a deep seated guilt at having lived in comparative prosperity, and they are desperate to ‘pay back’ for what ‘they’ have ‘taken’. The problem is, they want to superimpose their guilt onto everyone who lives in their part of the world. Like the Eugenics boosters who will not kill themselves and their children, Madeline Bunting is not willing to suffer alone as a dignified religious fanatic; she must CONVERT everyone, and drag them down into her pit of excrement.
This article has not gone unnoticed on teh internets, and not surprisingly, bloggers have been quick and thorough in smushing her down:
Madeleine Bunting has gone completely off the deep end.
What utter, utter twaddle. Worst case, Maddy, the world’s going to get a couple of degrees warmer. Open a fucking window.
But, no, this deserves a marginally less flippant response; because Bunting’s sentiments are not merely moronic – that’s par for the course – but, more than that, they’re chilling. Any right-thinking person reading the phrase “people’s choices will have to be ‘edited'” should feel that shiver running up their spine at the very thought of a world in which individual choice is, once more, subordinated to the will of the collective, and disgust at the palpable relish with which she sketches her brief portrait of the future.
I’ll try to choose my words carefully here, because it would be both easy and boring simply to label her as a fascist. Actually, what struck me when I read Bunting’s mindless eco-lunacy was a rather different comparison:
By all means, please read the rest of that blog post. It hits the nail on the head.
Lets get on with it.
In the MPs’ expenses controversy there is plenty to entertain and horrify, but the question that nags away unanswered is a very simple one: how did they feel entitled to make all these claims on the public purse? For a group of politicians who have been meticulously exacting in their calculations of benefit levels or pensions, how on earth did they feel they could extend such largesse to themselves?
That is not at all the question.
The real question is how is it that you are outraged at the trifling amounts of money involved in this ‘scandal’ but are unperturbed about the mass murder committed by New Labour and voted for by the MPs which cost BILLIONS in pounds and MILLIONS in lives? Are you really so delusional that you care more about a chandelier not being properly accounted for than the life of a human being?
It is almost beyond belief. Unless you take into account that many people do not value any life other than those whose appearance and background is identical to their own. Perhaps that explains why a chandelier is more valuable than a man in your world view.
Entitlement is the word that persists through the parallel story of the role in the financial crisis of the bonuses bankers awarded themselves. One banker claimed he was entitled to his bonus because of the amount of wealth and jobs he created for the economy. But where does his entitlement stand when the wealth and jobs evaporate?
What people like Madeline Bunting are incapable of doing (and many adherents of the new secular religion known as Environmentalism suffer from this) is an inability to separate unrelated facts that superficially appear to be related.
Banks are PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. The bonuses that they award their employees is a PRIVATE MATTER. The expenses of MPs and the bonuses of bankers are unrelated. Furthermore, the bonuses awarded to bankers had nothing to do with the ‘financial crisis’.
Before you can start to get to the bottom of anything, you need to have at least a tentative grasp on the facts of any matter. Madeline Bunting does not know anything about economics, does not know the difference between an employee of the state and an employee of a private corporation. For starters. Without these facts to hand, all of her conclusions that flow from her errors lead her into even more errors.
As the credibility of two major British institutions – politics and banking – collapses, what is coming into focus is not the question of legality, but the creation of a culture of entitlement.
Baking is not a ‘British Institution’. Banking is a business, like fish-mongering, that exists to make a profit. Politics is a service rendered by elected officials who are given power by and who are answerable to the electorate (at least thats how they tell it in the schools). The two things are completely separate, exist for entirely different reasons, run under different rules and so should be thought of separately.
It was this culture that enabled bankers and politicians to construct a set of rules for themselves that, when exposed to outsiders, are regarded as outrageous and profoundly unethical.
This is a lie.
Bankers bonuses are approved by shareholders. Banks are transparent in this respect. Politicians on the other hand, are a law unto themselves. They can murder, steal and destroy at will, and they are accountable to no one. If someone in their private capacity did what the British government does; counterfeit money, commit mass murder, steal with the threat and use of violence, people like Madeline Bunting would go insane with rage. Bankers are entitled to set whatever wages and bonuses they like for themselves, depending on what the market and the shareholders will bear. It has nothing to do with anyone, and if you do not like what they are doing, you can sell your shares, move your money, or vote for the measures in a shareholder’s meeting. The shareholders of Shell are going through this process right now. Business are far more accountable than government in this respect, and they are far more accommodating.
This is more pernicious than greed – that involves a degree of moral awareness; no, this involved no moral qualms at all – what remorse there has been is reluctant and pragmatic.
Remorse on the part of bankers is irrelevant. They deserve every penny they get. Remorse on the part of MPs is laughable, as is the entire premise of this foul article. These are the same people who voted for BILLIONS to be spent killing Iraqis, in absolute contempt and defiance of the vast majority of the British public. These are the same people who voted for ID Cards, ContactPoint and every other outrage, costing BILLIONS of pounds, and in the case of ID cards, enriching their best friends personally.
Where was the outrage at that story, of the wife of former Downing Street policy adviser Lord Birt set to land £2 billion ID card contract? Where were your calls for people to resign, for Parliament to be restructured and cleaned up after these appalling instances of evil on steroids?
Two aspects of this are important. The first is how weak individual ethical judgment turns out to be; only a few MPs seem to have looked at the parliamentary allowance system and concluded that it was being abused and they wanted no part in it.
The only thing that is weak here is the logical and empathetic skills of Madeline Bunting. If you are an MP, and you have LITERALLY gotten away with murder after facing down two million people in the streets of London without any consequences, and you and your club members award BILLION POUND contracts to your friends without a Madeline Bunting saying ‘boo’, are you really going to care about a chandelier? And if you are not one of those who are able to get into the source of the many billions of pounds that are on offer through corruption, are you not going to feel that, “if everyone else is stealing billions for themselves and their friends, why should I not take a small slice for myself. In any case, its all legal!”.
That, I assure, you is the PRECISE thinking of these men and women. They are thinking about all of this from behind the curtain. They are thinking about this from the perspective of men that can see the whole criminal enterprise from the inside. People like you Madeline, are looked upon with utter contempt and disdain. You are incapable of grasping scale, do not understand anything about how the real world works down to the money in your plastic purse, and so you are to be ignored and stolen from, as is your place in life.
THAT IS HOW THEY THINK.
What won out was the mentality that if everyone else is getting a piece of the cake, I want it too. The second is that the cultural consensus endemic among MPs and bankers is a version of L’Oréal’s advertising slogan – “because you’re worth it”.
Firstly, this is not a ‘mentality’ it is reality. It is literally true that these people think like this. As for the L'Oréal line, in the case of bankers, it is literally true; bankers really are worth that much. They are able to command these salaries and bonuses because that is what the market will bear. What they earn and how they earn it has nothing to do with you or the government. It is a PRIVATE matter between them and the shareholders. PERIOD.
This has been the Age of Entitlement in which those lucky or ingenious enough to find a way round the rules have richly rewarded themselves while the rest of us looked on, powerless and humiliated.
You are humiliated because you deserve it. You allow the government to steal your money from you, you allow them, even BEG them to regulate you – you demand that they remove the power of the individual and then complain that you are powerless. People THAT STUPID deserve everything they get.
The L'Oréal sentiment expresses a kind of dysfunctional meritocracy that has become endemic. It has been implicit in how inequality has been tolerated, and explicit in how a hyper-consumption has taken grip over the last two decades. And what got conveniently forgotten were the obvious questions that the slogan poses: who decides your worth? And at whose expense?
Salaries in banking are pure meritocracy. And even if they are not, they are not your business unless you are a shareholder. There will ALWAYS be inequality. People who want to eliminate inequality are delusional. As for hyper-consumption, no one forces anyone to buy anything. Of course, the Madeline Buntings believe that only THEY are immune to advertising and persuasion, blissfully unaware that they have been sold, and have conned into swallowing wholesale, the biggest pile of garbage – Environmentalism – in the history of mankind.
As for ‘who decides your worth’ in Madeline Bunting’s ideal world, people like her would decide what your worth is, arbitrarily, irrationally and hysterically. This is what the Soviet Union tried to do with their failed centrally planned economy. They failed, and Madeline and her religious fanatics will also fail. The question is will they fail before or after they completely destroy everything that has been built.
So far, so angry, so smug. I didn’t buy Stephen Fry’s argument that we’d all been on the take.
In Madeline’s world, someone in a office would FORCE you to buy it.
In the real world, you can opt not to buy an idea that someone puts on the table. You can make your own ideas and sell them. The difference between Madeline Bunting and us is that our philosophy can embrace hers and we will fight so that she can hold and sell her ideas. Her philosophy is pure evil, because it requires that we obey her and relinquish our philosophy and replace it with hers.
Then I found myself in a discussion on sustainable development.
While Westminster reeled, a challenge on a whole other scale was on the table a few hundred yards away. But we might as well have been on another planet given the radical kind of restructuring of society, economy and politics that was under discussion. And central to this was the challenge of dismantling the entire baroque edifice of the Age of Entitlement – the hyper-consumption driving the economic growth that devours the natural resources needed by future generations.
I wish that you WERE on another planet, you an all your priests and clerics and brain dead followers. Ironically, for this to happen, you will need our services to put you off world. But I digress.
Madeline and her environmentalist fanatic chums have a raft of assumptions that they key off of that are never questioned. The first assumption relates to what what life is meant to be like. Who has the right to demand that the life of humans on this world should be in one shape rather than another? Why is their outcome the preferable one? Why is it not the case that the population should be double what it is, or one percent of what it is, or 5 percent of what it is, but only Indonesians? More on this below.
Who put these maniacs in charge?
When they talk about ‘sustainable’ what does this mean exactly? Who gets to define it, and why should anyone be compelled to go along with it?
Who the hell does Madeline Bunting think she is?
Only the market can provide the answers to all the problems that we have; and make no mistake, there really are problems out there. Take for example, the problem of water scarcity. Wasting water doesnt make sense; if you can save it, you save yourself money that you can use for other purposes.
This is the principle behind the force that can solve almost any problem. The market can come up with the technologies and devices we can avail ourselvs of to save us money and improve our lives.
In the case of wasting water, look at this:
I saw it while taking a piss at the gigantic Westfield complex in Shepherd’s Bush. The urinals there are water free. Yes, WATER FREE. You piss into them, and thre is no water to wash down your urine. The loos do not smell of urine. I was so surprised by this that I pulled out my phone and Googled the loo on the spot.
This system uses an ingenious system to store urin in a sump under a sealant fluid. As urine is added to this sump, it flows into a vertical pipe and out of the urinal. All that is needed to keep it clean is an occasional wipe:
This is a perfect example of how innovation and the need to save money can solve a problem. A ‘facility population’ of 15,000 will experience savings of 16 MILLI|ON gallons of water. Heaven knows how much water is going to be saved at Westfield; they have MILLIONS of people passing through there and urinating; the amount of water they are going to save is going to be very large indeed, plus, they will not be putting any strain on the services of Thames Water, AND they will be saving money to boot.
THAT is how progress is done.
THAT is how life improves.
No one, no thin lipped fear soaked shivering aparatchick told Westfield that they had to install these urinals. No one forced Falcon to design their water free system; the two came together quiet naturally to solve a problem, without anyone telling them to do it or mandating it.
People like Madeline Bunting HATE this; it proves that no one needs them and their bogus religion. It proves that the individual, the entrepreneur is the true source of all solutions. When people solve their problems without consulting with or reference to government or environmentalists, both these groups get edgy, because they can smell that no one needs them; they are irrelevant, and what they want most of all in this world is to be relevant, and in control.
Totalitarianism means stagnation. Madeline Bunting and her ilk offer only stagnation and degradation. We have seen what their world would look like; the grey, lifeless existence hopelessly trying to imitate the real life of the west during the era of the Soviets. They imitated everything, from the Space Shuttle to the clothes the westerners wore. They ended up abandoning their project because it didn’t work, but the insane Environmentalists are undeterred; they are trying to repackage the Soviet centrally planned system to satisfy their new God.
And for the record, there are many companies working on these types of product. You can read about them at Treehugger. There are so many that it is impossible to keep up with them.
The MPs and bankers are only the most egregious examples of a pattern of behaviour evident everywhere: what makes the SUV driver entitled to guzzle petrol?
He has money.
he owns the roads.
He is free.
On the other side, what makes YOU entitled to stop him from driving whatever he wants? Certainly he doesn’t give a hoot about you driving your electric car or taking the bus; who do you think you are Madeline, that you can tell someone what car they can or cannot drive? What gives you the right to gang up with other people and use force to stop him from doing what he wants to do?
Or the frequent flyer?
He has money.
He has somewhere to go.
Once again, who do you think you are that you can ban someone from traveling? What gives you the right to tell him what to do? What gives you the right to gang up with other people and use force to stop him from doing what he wants to do?
Or the householder whose fridge is stuffed with food miles?
She has money.
She has children to feed.
Its the same again. Do you actually think you have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot eat? Are you really that Mad? What if an insane person decided that Madeline Bunting was, “too dangerous to be kept alive” and this person managed, through sophistry, pseudo science, hypnotic speechmaking, personality cult dynamics and other techniques, all of which amplified through the press and the internet, to convince many millions of other people that indeed, Madeline Bunting must die; would that make it right?
This is precisely what Madeline Bunting is proposing; that she, and her lunatic fringe have the right to control other people by force at the behest of some cult leaders and junk scientists… just because they say so.
Or anyone whose lifestyle involves spewing out inordinate amounts of carbon?
‘Carbon’ is bullshit. Like I said above, if you start from wrong premises, your conclusions are going to be wrong. And in this case, by orders of magnitude.
Also, who are YOU Madeline to say that these people cannot do what they want, even if the CO2, what you call ‘carbon’ scenario was true? You do not own the world, and you do not own the people who live on it. You do not have the right to band together with others to use force to make people adhere to your insane pseudo science and its illusory consequences.
Madeline’s use of the word ‘carbon’ is typical of the religious Environmentalist. Another example; they use the word ‘Chemicals’ when they mean ‘fertilizer’, or ‘pesticide’. These people think like dogs bark.
One would hardly expect a revolution to be plotted in a discussion in Carlton House Terrace, just off the Mall, let alone incubated in a government-appointed Sustainable Development Commission (SDC). But these are times of unprecedented political exhaustion with the mainstream, and with that comes a new and fast-growing appetite for radicalism and an abrupt break with the status quo. At such times political energy and attention move beyond the discredited centre ground in the hunt for fresh ideas. This is both sinister – the BNP could benefit – and refreshing, as the Greens may discover next month in the European elections.
And this is the really interesting thing that is happening. Even inside the Grauniad there are the totalitarians (Madeline Bunting) and the ostensibly freedom loving camps (Porter and co, who is actually a closet totalitarian, but he will serve for this post) The question is, who will prevail? Certainly any rational discussion with people like Madeline Bunting is impossible, since they do not have a scientific background and are thinking more like religious fanatics than logical human beings. They also have no idea of their true nature as human beings; no idea of what their rights are and where they come from etc etc, so it will be impossible to reason with them.
The people who are going to win are the ones who can make a successful emotional appeal to the most people. This means that the Environmentalists are going to lose. When their insane policies start to hurt, should they even get to the stage of implementation, there will be a MASSIVE backlash and they will be completely destroyed once and for all. No one is willing to put up with what they are proposing. No amount of brainwashing will work, and of course, the science says that they are wrong. In the end, they will be defeated. That is my bet.
In the latter category is a bold paper, Prosperity Without Growth, by the SDC economist Tim Jackson, which was the subject of the Carlton House Terrace discussion. It asked if we could imagine a capitalism without economic growth. Capitalist economies grow by creating and promising to fulfil new desires; without growth they are plunged into crisis. It has been deeply built into the system as a way to generate rising incomes and employment: growing consumption creates jobs and businesses. All governments see their primary task as growth in GDP – this is perceived as the primary measure of progress. But that cannot continue if we are to have any hope of making the kinds of cuts in carbon emissions to which the UK is committed. There is no credible evidence to suggest that technological ingenuity alone will do it.
Firstly, once again, AGW is nonsense. Secondly, it is absolutely hilarious that she says, “There is no credible evidence to suggest that technological ingenuity alone will do it.” ROTFL. This is the same line used by ‘deniers’ when they commit the heresy of saying Global Warming, oops, sorry, ‘Climate Change’ is not anthropogenic. And of course, I checked this with Google, something people like Madeline Bunting could never have imagined before they saw it in action for themselves. Even now, she is clearly incapable of using it. What a joke!
This is all the proof you need to demonstrate that this very sad person has no grounding in science and technology whatsoever. If she did, she would understand how science has continued to stun even the most unflappable with breakthrough after breakthrough. If anything is true, it is that technology will come up with things that we cannot even imagine, in timescales that are shockingly short. Maybe if she had a penis, she would see more innovations, like the urinal. Yes, I typed that.
This is the kind of politics no mainstream politician dares address.
And they should not, because what follows is all nonsense.
It requires abandoning a half-century of political assumptions: your children will not be better off than you
Nonsense. Technology, when it is unleashed by the power of individuals following their own interests and desires without interference, can come up with things you cannot imagine. The people of the future will live lives that are better than ours if we are allowed to interact without interference. What is guaranteed is that if the world of Madeline Bunting becomes reality, technological progress will stagnate, just like it did in the Soviet Union. And we all know how that ended.
– in fact, in many significant material ways they will be worse off;
Nonsense. Manufacturing processes will produce things that we cannot imagine, using methods we cannot even dream about. Some of them will be simple and innovative re-arrangements of things we already have to hand, like the parts that make up the Falcon Urinal Cartridge. Others will be completely new.
car use will have to be dramatically curtailed,
Rubbish. Any schoolboy will be able to tell you that all it will take is the synergistic effect of improvements in batteries and solar conversion to make electric cars the default type of car on the road. That means we can have MORE cars and LESS pollution. The sort of planet the Madeline Buntings of the world want us to live in is one where everyone is living at the extent of their limited imaginations. Thankfully the majority of people can actually THINK and have WORKING IMAGINATIONS and are actively trying to build the new products and systems that will make life better for us, instead of trying to restrict everything and force everyone to live like damp mushrooms.
as will flights;
Bullshit. Engines that are many thousands of times more efficient than the ones we use today will make air travel not only quieter and more efficient, but will allow more people to travel with less impact.
working hours will have to be reordered to share employment;
Nonsense. You may now educate yourself Madeline.
foreign holidays will be rarer;
Not so, for all the above reasons. Even using the environmentalists own preferred methods of travel, the train for example, are you now going to say that traveling by train to destinations in Europe is going to be stopped? Of course the channel tunnel, an unimaginable feat of engineering to the Buntings, makes this possible. See what I mean?
cheap food, a thing of the past.
Once again, it is impossible to predict what is going to happen with all of this. Perhaps there will be less waste of food than there is now… or no taxation on food. One thing is for sure, the Buntings are not going to be the ones providing the answers. They are just too pessimistic and negative, and this is not the true human nature.
And along with these unpalatable home truths will be the need for intervention in the minutiae of people’s lives: how much you heat your home or use water; how you move and eat.
This is called TOTALITARIANISM, of the kind practiced by the Soviet Union in their centrally planned economy, only infinitely worse. Of course, they are going to organize it with the ID card. Is Madders for or against it? Hmmmm I wonder. Whilst trawling around for an indication of where she sits on that fence, I found this:
ID cards could grant the taxman access to your bank records
We can’t allow the government to introduce legislation which allows the ID card database to be used for tax enforcement
Campaigners against ID cards have warned for years that the ID verification process will give the authorities power to monitor a person’s spending and draw conclusions about their tax declarations and real income.
These fears were dismissed by government supporters and journalists as hysterical but now they turn out to be rather well-founded.
Secondary legislation laid before parliament last week reveals that the taxman will have access to the log of a person’s major transactions, hotel bookings, airline tickets, holidays, car payment plans etc. Naturally the subject of this inspection will have no idea that HM Revenue and Customs is examining their spending log or what deductions, false or otherwise, will be made.
As the Daily Mail pointed out this legislation was quietly introduced to parliament at the very moment that MPs’ fraudulent and tax-avoiding affairs were being revealed by the Daily Telegraph. A piquant detail in the long story of how parliament has come to revile the ordinary member of the public.
It is absolutely essential for civil society and the conduct of our democracy – or what remains of it – that faceless bureaucrats are not given the power to look into individuals’ spending. It is another line drawn in the sand that we allow the executive to cross at our peril. I suggest that we should regard it as part of the battle to equalise the power of the government and the people.
But there are many who do not see the threat and indeed argue for even greater intrusion and data collection by the state. David Goodhart, the editor of Prospect magazine, wrote recently: “If there is too much suspicion of the state and too many data protection rules the state cannot give us what we want. It might be useful if we started to see out data as similar to tax, something we willingly surrender to the authorities in return for various benefits.”
In this newly announced piece of legislation, tax and data become intimately associated in a way that Goodhart no doubt applauds. But it never seems to occur to critics that the state has no natural right to either tax or information. Both are given up only with our consent, which depends on the demonstrable competence and propriety of the state, something that none of us could swear to today.
Goodhart’s is the argument of tyrants and slaves, it urges us to trust the state regardless of the evidence of its fallibility. Incidentally, it seems ironic that this statist line appears in a magazine part–owned by two wealthy financiers, one of whom, George Robinson is a hedge fund manager who made £18m in 2004 on a turnover of £74m, income that no doubt benefited from the favourable tax environment devised for hedge funds by Gordon Brown.
The supporters of state databases are going to have to campaign very hard over the coming months, not just about intrusion, but also data security. It will be interesting to see how they propose to guarantee the safety of our data after the 11th day of revelations by the Daily Telegraph, which of course all come from a breach of an official database, just like the one that will monitor our spending.
Which comes from the ‘other side’ of the Guardian; the side that pretends to be against totalitarianism. And by the way, this proves ONCE AGAIN, that Frances Stonor Saunders was right.
The role of state intervention will be huge; people’s choices will have to be “edited”, admits Anthony Giddens in his recent book, The Politics of Climate Change. Leaving individuals to find the moral strength to resist the cultural pressures will simply not be effective (the MPs’ expenses saga would seem to justify this conclusion). Our lives will have to be regulated in ways that we can’t imagine.
Thats laughable coming from someone who has no imagination!
Consumer advertising will have to be curbed to prevent it exploiting insecurity and anxiety to create new markets.
It is PRECISELY new markets that are needed to propel the technology that will get us out of the mess that you believe in your religious fervor that we are headed into. And of course, the ‘consumer’ who is less intelligent and discerning than Madeline cannot be trusted to be exposed to the irrisistable media of the advertisers, because they are all brain-washable unlike her. Yeah right.
The fact that the Australian government has banned all light bulbs that are not low energy is a glimpse of what is required.
It is also a glimpse into the Bunting world; an insane world where mercury filled lights are mandated when simply switching off the less poisonous and expensive bulbs would be sufficient.
You people are insane!
What will be difficult is the governance of these changes: what kind of state will be required to push these changes through and what powers will it need to do so?
A totalitarian state the likes of which the world has never seen. And it will only exist in the ‘civilized’ countries, like Britain, if it ever comes to pass at all, and even then, it will be short lived, because the people will rise up and smash it down, or like the Soviet System, it will collapse under the strain of its own weight.
Giddens suggests that there will have to be a return to small self-reliant communities
and perhaps they will have to have a role in the distribution and monitoring of carbon allocations.
More total insanity. Allocations made by who? The Totalitarian Bunting State. What she is describing is a world of mini prisons where everyone is watched by everyone else in a small scale, fine grained grid of absolute control.
Crucially, how will we weigh the loss of personal freedoms against the hope of survival of human beings?
Who is the ‘we’ in this sentence? I am not a part of your we Madeline Bunting. Furthermore survive for WHAT exactly? There is not a single person, even in the most lunatic of the environmentalism religion who thinks that mankind will be made extinct because of global warming, global cooling, or any of the other absurd disaster scenarios that are the doctrine of these dunderheads. When she says ‘survive’ what is it that she is really talking about? I think these people want everything to stay the same, or everything to return to what it was at some point in the past. What they want is the ‘survival’ of their culture, their museums, their art, their way of life, preserved in a jar forever; unchanging and utterly inhuman.
These people are terrified of CHANGE. Because their imaginations are crippled or not working at all, the only future they can see is one filtered through their own ignorant fears of a future that is beyond their understanding. These are simple people, who cannot understand how anything that we have today works; how are they going to be able to extrapolate (and calm themselves down) future devices and methods that can solve our problems when they cannot even understand a cellular phone?
What the shape of the future should be is not the responsibility of any single group. It is certainly not the responsibility of luddites like Henry Porter and Madeline Bunting. Thankfully, no matter what these people think, the future is going to be made by entrepreneurs, real scientists and the people who consume. If the UK, at the urging of these idiots manages to exclude itself from the future, then the future will be made in other countries that are hungry for the transformative power of entrepreneurialism; look at Dubai for an example of what can happen in a very short amount of time; with all of its problems, that place has been turned from nothing into somewhere that millions of people go for all sorts of reasons. Millions of Britons go to Dubai on holiday. People from all over continental Africa go there for medical treatment; they are now shunning the states of the EU because of people like Madeline Bunting.
Dubai is only the first of many 21st century states that will supersede Britain in every aspect. In Buntings Britain, not even the British will want to stay here. They are already leaving in droves, and if Bunting has her way, everyone that can walk will be running to escape.
Equally difficult will be the massive cultural revolution
‘Cultural Revolution’. Typed without irony. See the blog post above for the description of ‘Year Zero’. What a TOTAL NUTCASE.
required to reorient a set of values rooted in an entitlement to an unfair proportion of the planet’s resources. The illusion of a good life conceived in terms of individual material advancement has to be exposed as an advertising con; rising affluence has not produced rising levels of wellbeing but a dispiriting scrabble for advantage, argues Tim Jackson.
You first. YOU expose it as an advertising con. You convince everyone that it is better not to be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world for free.
You have three children. Think about the story of the emperor the chess board and the grains of rice. Your three children, if they were grains of rice in this scenario, would multiply to a very large number in a short amount of time. Lead by example. Kill them now to stop the world becoming overpopulated with ‘the seed of Bunting’. You could set an even better example by starving them to death. Then you can give away all your possessions to people who have none.
Get back to us when you are finished.
The light at the end of the tunnel is Jackson’s insistence that it is perfectly possible to imagine a way of life with less material wealth that could actually be far more sustaining of human well being.
You need an imagination in order to do that. And we are not in a dark place at all; it is YOU who are in a dark place Madeline. It is a place created by your own dark thoughts, magnified by the religious dogma of pseudo scientific drivel and the religion of environmentalism. You are a very sick person, with deeply seated psychological problems that read like self hatred, obsession with morbidity, paranoia and some other ugly stuff.
The problem is that we need politicians brave and bold enough to start taking us down that long road – and we have discovered that they are riddled with the very disease we need to cure.
Someone else has to do it; ‘we need to be led’. Unbelievable.
I have news for you Madeline; you are the disease.
It is unlikely that all of Mad Dog Madeline’s proposals and insane ideas will be implemented, for the reasons that I gave above. The worrying thing is that if even one one hundredth of them comes to pass, it will be a total disaster. In order to do any of it, everyone will have to be put into the NIR and issued ID Cards by force, as a means to organize regulation. The NIR and the ID Card alone are a terrible consequence of the control addict’s urge; at the moment that foul system is completely unjustified. In a Bunting world, a world of rationing, it becomes absolutely essential.
The battle lines are being clearly drawn. We have on one side, state owned and controlled unethical doctors who call for children to be removed from their mothers because they are ‘too old’, mothers who want their children to live like the drug addled inhabitants of the hive-like world of THX-1138, mass murdering, money destroying Orwell fulfilling governments running hog wild. On the other, you have us… you and me, and every other decent person.
We outnumber them 10,000 to 1.
They haven’t got a hope in Hell.