Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Biting off more than they can chew?

I will confess to some satisfaction at seeing the latest Greenpeace "direct action" attempt dealt with so firmly and decisively by the Russians. To my way of thinking these terminally fundamentalist "Greens" are irresponsible, misguided and dangerous. Their attempt to board and "occupy" the exploration rig was foolhardy to say the least. It endangered themselves, and it placed the crew of the rig in danger as well. It may not be strictly an "act of terror", but it most definitely is a form of terrorism to attempt to seize and deny the use of a ship, platform or building to its legitimate owners, crew or occupiers.

It is probably too much to hope that this will be the start of a change of heart globally toward these starry eyed eco-activists and their multi-billion pound organisation, but it will, hopefully, make some of them think twice about what they are being urged to do. The Russians are unlikely to kowtow to "world opinion" (read Western Media hysteria), and will prosecute the boarders and the crew of the ship that took them into action. It will cost Greenpeace a lot of money - and I will not be offering them a single cent to help. They've had this coming for years, and I'm right behind the Russians on their firm handling of it.

Let's be clear, I am NOT in support of drilling in the Arctic. I am NOT in favour of opening sea routes for massive ships with ice breaking capability through this ecologically sensitive part of the world. I simply do not believe the economic gains will be worth the real cost in terms of the ecological damage it will do. One has only to look at the impact of the Russian mega dams on the rivers feeding the Caspian Sea to realise that, not only is the irrigation they provided now ruining the land it once made fertile, but the Sea itself is in danger of total disappearance. There are some things we simply should not mess about with. The same is evident in the Colorado basin where the draw off of water for swimming pools, extravagant fountains in places like Las Vegas and other desert cities is reducing the levels in the river and in the natural lakes it fed on its way to the sea.

What has remained hidden is that almost all the "eco-protection" organisations have fallen under the control of ideologists whose "future vision" is heavily flavoured by socialist ideals, by visions of "village life", "ecological harmony" and a reduction of human populations. It's that last bit they like to keep quiet about, it smacks of all manner of unsavoury practices, but it lies at the heart of a document called "Agenda 21" dreamed up in the latter part of the 20th Century by a mishmash of UN aparatchiks, "Green" NGOs and politicians. The Agenda requires deindustrialisation, redistribution of wealth, "sustainable" agriculture (read no GM, no fertilisers, no fungicides, no pesticides ...), conversion of everything to "renewable" energy from wind, solar and perhaps hydro (caveat - no dams), and the phasing out of all "fossil" fuel use. Oh, and a population level fixed at 4 - 6 billion.

You could be excused for feeling the Luddites are now in government everywhere in the west at least. It is most notable that it is the "developed" nations which have quietly adopted this Agenda - to the amusement and benefit of the despots everywhere else who are busily "redistributing" all the AID they get to their Swiss Bank accounts. Organisations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others all benefit as well, drawing down "research" funds and handouts from many taxpayer sources as well as from the gullible public beguiled by images of lonely polar bears or weeping seal pups. All of them have become multi-billion pound organisations by playing on the fear of the gullible of anything they can.

In recent years I have watched in amazement as more and more violent protests are excused as a "right to protest" against anything and everything. It is now, apparently, acceptable for a group of protesters to storm into a bank or some other organisation they don't like, and disrupt business, smash the furniture, throw fire extinguishers at people or computers out of windows. It is acceptable to intimidate staff by daubing their cars and homes with threatening slogans or blockade their access to their employment. All because some legal beagles have managed to twist the law so that "legitimate protest" now means conduct a campaign of terror and total disruption.

At least the Russians have drawn a line in the sand (or the ice in this case). Perhaps it is time the rest of the world did as well.

No comments:

Post a Comment