Category: US

Posted on

Frank Geels & Disruptive Innovation Framework

(From actual academic writing: Frank W. Geels)

(More academia: Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester University)

(Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation” video)

(From the Uppity Peasants site)

Note: This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled.
Go check out “Uppity Peasants“.

Quotes From The Geels Article

Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective

This will be elaborated on, but is about subverted the status quo, or “disruption”. Worth pointing out, that although these types of articles are published and marketed as “science”, they are anything but.

As this title would suggest, the article is extremely political. The concern is not about science itself, but how to “sell” the science. And the agenda here is searching for political methods of implementing the transition to a Carbon free

ABSTRACT
This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social scienceseconomy.

The usefulness of Christiansen’s disruptive innovation framework? While used in a business sense, it appears to be a way for entrepreneurs to get into a market or business. However, in this context it is used as disrupting an environmental policy.

It is mildly (or downright) creepy that the author, Frank Geels, openly suggests that research should broaden its engagement with social sciences. In plain English, this means merging, where scientific research is viewed through a “social” lens.

Christiansen’s “Disruptive Innovation Framework” is explained in the above video. Also see “disruption in financial services“.

Christensen [4] made important contributions to the long-standing debate in innovation management about new entrants, incumbents and industry structures. He argued that disruptive innovations enable new entrants to ‘attack from below’ and overthrow incumbent firms. Christensen thus has a particular understanding of disruption, focused mainly on the competitive effects of innovations on existing firms and industry structures. His framework was not developed to address systemic effects or broader transformations, so my comments below are not about the intrinsic merits of the framework, but about their usefulness for low-carbon transitions.

Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework offers several useful insights for low-carbon transitions (although similar ideas can also be found elsewhere). First, it suggests that incumbent firms tend to focus their innovation efforts on sustaining technologies (which improve performance along established criteria), while new entrants tend to develop disruptive technologies (which offer different value propositions). Second, it proposes that disruptive technologies emerge in small peripheral niches, where early adopters are attracted by the technology’s new functionalities. Third, incumbent firms may initially overlook or under-estimate disruptive technologies (because of established beliefs) or are not interested in them, because the limited return on-investments associated with small markets do not fit with existing business models. Fourth, price/performance improvements may enable disruptive technologies to enter larger markets, out-compete existing technologies and overthrow incumbent firms

Worth pointing out right away, Geels has no interest in the “intrinsic merits” of the disruptive innovation framework that Christiansen talks about. Rather, he focuses on applying that technique to reducing/eliminating Carbon emissions from society.

Christiansen’s idea could be applied fairly practically to business, where new players want to establish themselves. However, Geels “weaponizes” this idea and wants to apply it with the climate-change agenda.

Geels also makes it obvious that overthrowing incumbents is a priority. Again, Christiansen’s writings were meant with the business approach, and trying to start your own, but Geels “repurposes” it.

While Christensen’s framework focuses on technical and business dimensions, the MLP also accommodates consumption, cultural, and socio-political dimensions. Although co-evolution has always been a core concept in the MLP, this is even more important for low-carbon transitions, which are goal-oriented or ‘purposive’ in the sense of addressing the problem of climate change. This makes them different from historical transitions which were largely ‘emergent’, with entrepreneurs exploiting the commercial opportunities offered by new technology

[27]. Because climate protection is a public good, private actors (e.g. firms, consumers) have limited incentives to address it owing to free rider problems and prisoner’s dilemmas. This means that public policy must play a central role in supporting the emergence and deployment of low-carbon innovations and changing the economic frame conditions (via taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards) that incentivize firms, consumers and other actors. However, substantial policy changes involve political struggles and public debate because: “[w]hatever can be done through the State will depend upon generating widespread political support from citizens within the context of democratic rights and freedoms” ([28]: 91).

Again, Geels hijacking a legitimate business concept, but using it for his enviro agenda.

How to implement this? Taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards for businesses and consumers. Use these to regulate and influence behaviour.

Geels rightly says that widespread political support will be needed. But he frames the climate change scam as a way to protect rights and freedoms. Nice bait-and-switch.

Conceptually, this means that we should analyse socio-technical transitions as multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes. These struggles include: economic competition between old and new technologies; business struggles between new entrants and incumbents; political struggles over adjustments in regulations, standards, subsidies and taxes; discursive struggles over problem framings and social acceptance; and struggles between new user practices and mainstream ones.

Despite Geels’ article being published in the Journal, “ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE”, this anything but scientific. If anything, it seems analogous to the “lawfare” that Islamic groups perpetuate on democratic societies.

While Geels promotes economic competition, this is anything but a fair competition. He also calls for:

  • Political struggles over regulations
  • New standards
  • Subsidies
  • Taxes
  • Discursive struggles over problem framings & social acceptance
  • Struggles between new and mainstream user practices

There is nothing scientific here. This is a call for using “political” manoeuvering for achieving social goals.

The importance of public engagement, social acceptance and political feasibility is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies and model-based scenarios, which focus on techno-economic dimensions to identify least-cost pathways [32]. In the UK, which is characterized by closed policy networks and top-down policy style, this neglect has led to many problems, which are undermining the low carbon transition.

• Onshore wind experienced local protests and permit problems, leading to negative public discourses and a political backlash, culminating in a post-2020 moratorium.

• Shale gas experienced public controversies after it was pushed through without sufficient consultation.

• Energy-saving measures in homes were scrapped in 2015, after the Green Deal flagship policy(introduced in2013) spectacularly failed, because it was overly complicated and poorly designed, leading to limited uptake.

• The 2006 zero-carbon homes target, which stipulated that all new homes should be carbon-neutral by 2016, was scrapped in 2015, because of resistance by major housebuilders and limited consumer interest.

• The smart meter roll-out is experiencing delays, because of controversies over standards, privacy concerns, and distribution of benefits (between energy companies and consumers).

While these points are in fact true, Geels suggests that problems could have been avoided if there was sufficient public consultation. This is wishful thinking.

These points raise many legitimate concerns with the eco-agenda. Yet Geels shrugs them off as the result of not engaging the public enough.

Christensen and other innovation management scholars typically adopt a ‘point source’ approach to disruption, in which innovators pioneer new technologies, conquer the world, and cause social change. Existing contexts are typically seen as ‘barriers’ to be overcome. This ‘bottom-up’ emphasis also permeates the Strategic Niche Management and Technological Innovation System literatures. While this kind of change pattern does sometimes occur, the MLP was specifically developed to also accommodate broader patterns, in which niche-innovations diffuse because they align with ongoing processes at landscape- or regime-levels [9].

The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr [58], for instance, emphasizes that “The new invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment” (p. 292) and that “Macro-inventions are seeds sown by individual inventors in a social soil. (.) But the environment into which these seeds are sown is, of course, the main determinant of whether they will sprout” (p. 299). So, if radical innovations face mis-matches with economic, socio-cultural or political contexts, they may remain stuck in peripheral niches, hidden ‘below the surface’.

Since low-carbon transitions are problem-oriented, transition scholars should not only analyse innovation dynamics, but also ‘issue dynamics’ because increasing socio-political concerns about climate change can lead to changes in regime-level institutions and selection environments. Societal problems or ‘issues’ have their own dynamics in terms of problem definition and socio-political mobilization as conceptualized, for instance, in the issue lifecycle literature [59,50]. Low carbon transitions require stronger ‘solution’ and problem dynamics, and their successful alignment, which is not an easy process, as the examples below show.

These passages go into marketing strategies, and ways to “frame an argument”. Notice not once does Geels suggest doing more research, or checking the reliability of existing data. Instead, this is a push for emotional manipulation and shameless advertising.

Invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment. Science be damned.

There are also positive developments, however, that provide windows of opportunity. Coal is losing legitimacy in parts of the world, because it is increasingly framed as dirty, unhealthy and old-fashioned, and because oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from coal, leading to cracks in the previously ‘closed front’ of fossil fuel industries. The UK has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2025 and several other countries (Netherlands, France, Canada, Finland, Austria) also move in this direction, providing space for low-carbon alternatives, including renewables.

I would actually agree that coal being phased out would benefit society. However, Geels makes it a “marketing” issue rather than a scientific one. Coal is “increasingly framed” as dirty. Notice that the actual science, such as from this site, are very rarely described.

Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:
C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)
2C + O2 = 2CO + 2430 Kcal/Kg of carbon (10120 KJ/Kg)

Geels’ Conclusions

The paper has also identified several research challenges, where the transitions community could fruitfully do more work. First, we should broaden our analytical attention from singular niche-innovations (which permeate the literature) to ‘whole system’ change. This may involve changes in conceptual imagery (from ‘point source’ disruption to gradual system reconfiguration) and broader research designs, which analyze multiple niche-innovations and their relations to ongoing dynamics in existing systems and regimes. That, in turn, may require more attention for change mechanisms like add-on, hybridisation, modular component substitution, knock-on effects, innovation cascades, multi regime interaction.

Second, we should better understand regime developments. Existing regimes can provide formidable barriers for low-carbon transitions. Incumbent actors can resist, delay or derail low-carbon transitions, but they can also accelerate them if they reorient their strategies and resources towards niche-innovations. The analysis of niche-to-regime dynamics (as in the niche empowerment literature) should thus be complemented with regime-to-niche dynamics, including incumbent resistance or reorientation. Additionally, we need more nuanced conceptualizations and assessments of degrees of lock-in, tensions, cracks, and destabilisation.

Third, we need greater acknowledgement that socio-technical systems are a special unit of analysis, which spans the social sciences and can be studied through different lenses and at different levels. The recent trend towards deepening our understanding of particular dimensions and societal groups is tremendously fruitful, because disciplinary theories offer more specific causal mechanisms. But, as a community, we should complement this with broad analyses of co-evolution, alignment, multi-dimensionality and ‘whole systems’.

This all sounds elegant, but read between the lines. It is about influencing public perception. Whenever academics, lawyers or politicians seem to make things confusing we need to ask: are they trying to obscure their goals?

More About Frank W. Geels

Selected publications of Geels
If you would like a broader cross section of Geels’ work, perhaps these publications will be of interest.

  • Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. and Van Vuuren, D., 2016, Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions, Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576-583
  • Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014), Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913
  • Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van Vuuren, D., 2015, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253
  • Penna, C.C.R. and Geels, F.W., 2015, ‘Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2011): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model’, Research Policy, 44(5), 1029-1048
  • Geels, F.W., 2014, ‘Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40
  • Geels, F.W., 2013, ‘The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: Financial investment, governance and public discourse’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 67-95
  • Geels, F.W., 2012, ‘A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482
  • Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (eds.), 2012, Automobility in Transition? A Socio Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, New York: Routledge
  • Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2010, ‘Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 12141221 Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2007, ‘The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a sociotechnical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)’, Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025-1037
  • Geels, F.W., 2002, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274

Frank Geels publicly available CV
Education
• Ph.D., Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Twente University of Technology (Jan. 1998- July 2002), Netherlands. Supervisors: Arie Rip and Johan Schot. Title PhD thesis: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.
• Masters degree in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, Twente University of Technology (1991-1996)
• Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, Twente University of Technology (1989-1991)

For what it’s worth, his formal education is pretty impressive. Where I lose respect is when he deviates from scientific argument in favour of political discourse. What could be very interesting work is corrupted be having an agenda.

His undergraduate degree is chemical engineering, which again, is very respectable. However, his Masters and PhD show a deviation from science and research.

While there are many other such authors, Frank W. Geels is a good case of what happens when political agendas and manoeuvering creep into science.

A morbidly fascinating topic. Check out some of his other publications.

(1) https://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/.
CLICK HERE, for Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation”.
(2) https://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/research/working-groups/collective-action-and-social-movements/
(3) https://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/research/working-groups/sustainability-and-social-inequalities/
(4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422411000050
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
(6) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.539.638&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Posted on

Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.

2. Contribution By Organization

GROUP AMOUNT GIVEN
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
J-Street $400,000
Zionist Organization of America $200,000
Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
Jewish American Committee $74,000
Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

This is the source (for 2018)

3. Highest Paid Puppets

Name Party State Amount for 2018
Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.

4. Strengthening US Security In ME Act

SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

Here is the source.

5. Thoughts On Omar’s Comments

  1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
  2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
  3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
  4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
  5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
  6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.

6. Islamic Influence

CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.

7. Paid Saudi Lobbyists

Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
Cambridge Associates $8,505
Cassidy & Associates $720,000
DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

Source is here.

This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

  1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
  2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
  3. Halal meat only
  4. Prayer rooms built in schools
  5. Build foot wash stations
  6. Paid time off to pray
  7. Sharia compliant swim times
  8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
  9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
  10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population

Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

3. Why This Is Important


There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger

    • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    Posted on

    Florida Judge Rules Using Fake Documents To Get Driver’s License Isn’t Illegal

    CLICK HERE, for text of the ruling.
    CLICK HERE, for media on the subject.

    “BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order (“Motion”), ECF No. [53]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition, ECF No. [54], and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

    The Government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing the Superseding Indictment against the Defendant. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration. In ruling on a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, federal district courts apply civil standards and exercise substantial discretion. See United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL 4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) (Seitz, J.) (citing United States v. Pugh, 426 F. App’x 876, 876 (11th Cir. 2011)). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration should not simply rehash previously litigated issues[.]” United States v. Russo, No. 11-6337-RSR, 2011 WL 3044844, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2011) (Rosenbaum, J.); see also Smith, 488 F. App’x at 428 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citing Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343))).
    In its Motion, the Government rehashes essentially the same arguments raised in its Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal, during argument at calendar call, and in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum. The Government disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Government has failed to identify any federal statute or regulation prescribing an Order of Supervision as evidence of authorized stay in the United States. Yet the Government fails to point to any new facts or law, demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, or identify any federal statute or regulation that would require the Court to change its prior finding. Simply put, the Government’s arguments amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court and do not warrant reconsideration. See Linet Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff merely “disagreed with the district court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions” in the earlier order under review); see also Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (Goodman, J.).

    It appears the Government argues that evidence of authorized employment in the United States necessarily equates to evidence of authorized stay in the United States. However, this argument is not persuasive because Section 1546(a) clearly delineates documents evidencing “authorized stay” and documents evidencing “authorized employment” as two distinct forms of authorization. By equating these two forms of authorization, the Government’s interpretation of Section 1546(a) necessarily renders the words “or [authorized] employment” superfluous. See In Re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e generally construe a statute so that ‘no clause, sentence, or word’ is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001))). While the Court agrees with the Government that, when amending Section 1546(a) in 1986, Congress intended to broaden the types of documents encompassed by Section 1546(a) beyond those “required for entry into the United States,” see ECF No. , the Government’s Superseding Indictment did not provide the Defendant notice of any intent to prove that an Order of Supervision is “prescribed by statute or regulation… as evidence of authorized… employment in the United States,” ECF No. [22].

    Accordingly, it is
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order, ECF No. [53], is DENIED.

    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2019.

    This is absurd. The driver’s license was obtained under false pretenses. Shrugging this off as “procedural” is setting a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.

    Hopefully either it is overturned, or the State Congress will enact legislation to prevent this from happening again.

    Posted on

    Stop Replacement Migration, Have Bigger Families

    (UN Promotes replacement migration)


    (Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)

    1. Previous Solutions Offered

    A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

    2. Population Replacement Agenda

    CLICK HERE, for the topic of “REPLACEMENT MIGRATION”.
    CLICK HERE, for March 2000 Report.

    NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
    20000317

    NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

    United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
    Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

    Major findings of this report include:
    — In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

    — Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

    – 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    — Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

    — Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

    — The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

    — In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

    — The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

    – 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
    The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

    3. The Hungarian Alternative

    Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.

    By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.

    Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.

    Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.

    4. Conservatism & Libertarianism Fail

    In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.

    Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.

    Posted on

    CCS #12: AOC’s “Green New Deal”, Eco-Communism & Identity Politics


    (Ocasio-Cortez, explaining the Green New Deal)

    Check out Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens, for an interesting review on the Green New Deal. Thorough, and on point in her critique.

    Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.

    Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.

    Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.

    Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….

    Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.

    Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.

    The FAQ Section

    “What is the Green New Deal?
    .
    The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.

    The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”

    1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
    2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
    3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
    4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
    5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
    6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
    7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
    8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
    9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?

    Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
    -A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
    -High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
    -High-quality health care
    -Clean air and water
    -Healthy food
    -Safe, affordable, adequate housing
    -An economic environment free of monopolies
    -Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK

    (my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.

    People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.

    “Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
    A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”

    1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
    2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
    3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
    4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.

    “How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
    The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
    We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”

    This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?

    The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.

    “We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”

    “Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
    The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”

    This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.

    “Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
    The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”

    1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
    2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
    3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
    4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
    5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
    6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
    7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
    8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?

    Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.

    First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.

    “(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
    (A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
    (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
    (C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
    (D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
    (E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
    (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
    (4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
    (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
    (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
    B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
    C/ A source would be nice.
    D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
    E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
    F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
    4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
    A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
    B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.

    “Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”

    The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.

    “(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
    (A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
    (B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
    (C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
    (D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”

    It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.

    “(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
    (A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
    (B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
    (C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”

    A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
    B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
    Remember, the 1% is very small.
    So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
    C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.

    If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?

    “(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”

    Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?

    Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.

    “(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
    (A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
    (B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
    (i) existing laws;
    (ii) new policies and programs; and
    (iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
    (C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
    (D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
    (E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
    (F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
    (G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
    (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
    (I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
    (J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
    (K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
    (i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
    (ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
    (L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
    (M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
    (N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
    (O) providing all people of the United States with—
    (i) high-quality health care;
    (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
    (iii) economic security; and
    (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”

    While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
    A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
    B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
    C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
    D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
    E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
    F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
    G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
    H/ More guaranteed jobs.
    I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
    J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
    K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
    L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
    M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
    N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
    O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities

    While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.

    Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.

    The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.

    The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.

    All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.

    For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.

    The new face of the Democratic Party?

    CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ.
    CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal.
    CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ.
    CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress