At what point do
A; Wake up to fact the junkies have hijacked the medicine cabinet take a real good long hard look at who the sponsor of the UN sustainability model. Monsato, Bayer, Nestles, ect ect
These are not lovers of the planet – we seems to have forgotten this since 1999 when the first attempt to place the wolf in a lambskin saw protesters using Mike Moore effigy to protest against the form of globalism were now told is helping us become mre sustainable.
We saw through that attempted con job last time and now we need to see through the spin once more.
B; In short term the UN (IMF Wolrd Bank driven) model appeals including depopulation, via the use of careful well finaced marketing, to progressive middle class liberals who with encouraged cognative dissonance dont realise they are being sold Lange Rogernomics Neoliberlism on a global scale. In fact it using the same Trojan horse tactics the fish and chip brigage used to ride in on the popularity of anti nukes enahnced by the bi-partisan outrage of the 1987 Rainbow warrior bombing. (but the point in NZ history were defence spending took off and has kept climbing ever since). And thats not an accident New Zealand has played a huge role in the evolution of global neoliberalism.
(I cant find the one showing how many kiwi helped herald in WTO (Moore), Blair (Adern), UN adoption of Moore liberally rejected WTO Dohar model [Clark]: A review of UN Parliamentarians For A Global Action (formerly a Global New Order), makes clear plent of National folk involved too so not a partisan issue; but this pdf still highlights the contribution New Zealand has made to Neoliberalism version of globalism).
In the long term the current UN ‘sustainability model’ is formula for economic apartheid and the fall out for that is environemtal catophry as scarce resource [smart technology replaces fossil fuels] breed’s competition that ultimate the other 23 million species were share planet earth with always pay for. Even the UN analysts get this. The question is will the Corporate lobbyist who control the UN finances accept that no they cant have their green cake and keep eating like capitalist too.
I personally have no issue with the idea of fewer humans on the planet but if the consumption of resources by the elite (the self appointed managers of a flawed maltheusian economic model), which gets smaller but wealthier as wealth centralises, continues at it current rate reduce population moot. For it serves only as a protectionism of the elite not a mean of protecting the planet and the other species who reside on it.
The neoliberla agrimodel as sold by the UN sustainbility model is a poster child for ecocide and rascist ecofascism.
A fascist wolf hidden inside a lambskin but in no way a lamb. Heil Hydra welcome to the Forth Reich. The wealth model needs to be changed or the planets screwed regardless of the size of the human population. A piece by the Guardian hihg light the rise of the danger of ecofascism and even high light the issue of forced migration which under socred the nature of the Global Migration pact the brain child of no less than the chief marketer for Rogernomic Mike Moore (UN Parliamnetarian for Global Action) during his time at the UN as the first envo on Global Migration
“Eco-fascists have lamented the despoliation of nature, which they associate with modernity and an industrial society which they feel has diminished the connections between race and territory. One of their principal concerns tends to be what they see as human overpopulation, and the tendency of migration and multiculturalism to move races out of their homelands. This line of thought can ultimately be traced back to figures such as Thomas Malthus, who at the end of the 18th century claimed that population growth was outstripping the capacity for food production, and advocated population control as a solution. Nothwithstanding the bad-faith “Hitler was a vegetarian” smears of conservatives*1, a strain of ecological thought was present in Nazism. In one of the most important modern accounts of eco-fascism, Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier say that Nazi ecology was “linked with traditional agrarian romanticism and hostility to urban civilization”, and that ecological ideas were an “essential element of racial rejuvenation”
‘One Ring’ to feed them all.
1= *We need to eat less meat for sure (and the less we eat the more it will no longer be important to us) but what we really need to see first is to see the end of super markets and industrial farming be it livestock orplant based. If some one was to pass a law saying you can only get your meat if you fish hunt or farm (barter) it your self I would have no problem with that as the barbarian I am. But dont create a ‘conservation’ model which means I can only get my meat free GMO pesticide soaked food from a supermarket. Thats an insanity that our friends the animals would pay far more dearly for. A culture in which we have to get our food by interacting with the nature means a culture were develop a better understanding/respect of nature. And as Jane Goodall said “if you dont understand something you cant love it. If you dont love it you cant protect it”. I fear the smart city model of the UN sustainbility that lock us away from nature. Its fascism pure and simple and its depopulation model is about control not conservation.
The UN sustainble model and its corporate marketing legions has however done us one great big favour were now having a conversation we were not before. Humans now get we cant go one the way we have being. But having created this groundswell it time to adress the UN model is one based on creating profit for the corporate shareholdeers. And you just can’t be a capitalist and environmentalist as thats an oxymoron.
And Its oxymoron which is deadly for all sentient life upon this planet.
PS if you get the chance see the movie Branded (Jamie Bradshaw 2001).