<<< Back



What the Greens Really Want     By Jim Peron

For the World Summit on Sustainable Development the Heinrich Böll Foundation released
a report which they called the Jo’burg Memo. The Foundation is one of many such institutes
funded by the German government on behalf of German political parties. And the Böll Foundation
is linked with the German Green Party, one of the most influential, and successful, Green
political parties in the world today. And the Jo’burg Memo is a good place to look
if one wants to see the Green agenda when modified for public consumption.

This report does not merely represent the Green Party of Germany but was a
broader document in that it included many environmentalist activists from around the
world. Authors of the report include Wolfgang Sachs. chairman of Greenpeace in Germany:
Hilary French of Worldwatch; Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop and
well known Left-wing activist; and Sara Larrain of Greenpeace, Chile. Of course the
collection of authors is sprinkled with the representative sampling of feminists and
others needed to sanction the report as politically correct.

In general this report avoids the usual litany of disasters looming around the
corner. It is assumed that all those attending the World Summit would already be converts
to that viewpoint of environmental Armageddon. This report is meant to concentrate
on the fundamental principles of good Green politics. And it does. Simply put free
markets are evil and global central economic planning are the solution.
Early in the report they make it clear that free markets simply are not an alternative
for the Greens. They wrote that “any expansion of the market, even with per-unit
efficiency increase, hastens environmental degradation in the end. No wonder that forests
disappear, soils erode, and the sky fills up with carbon. The surge of economic
expansion, spurred by trade liberalisation, has largely washed away the modest gains,
which have materialized in Rio’s wake.”

But markets are not the only target of these ideologues. They also condemn technology,
science and all things Western while promoting the values of primitive cultures,
folk wisdom and all things tribal. They stated that prior to the “environmental crisis...one
could still attribute a certain degree of superiority to the technological civilisation which
had emerged.” Of course since the Green movement started predicting disasters “it has
become obvious that many of its glorious achievement are actually optical illusions in
disguise.”

In general the Green anti-science, anti-technology bias would normally exclude
them from Marxist circles. Marx, unlike his step-children in the Green movement, was
not opposed to science or to technology. But remember that it was precisely these fields
where Marxism most spectacularly failed. The Marxists liked to pretend that Soviet
technology and science was superior to that found in market economies. What technology
they did have was often stolen from the West, either through espionage, or through
theft. But the Soviets were fond of claiming every technological break through as their
own. Yet the collapse of Communism showed these claims to be public relations hype.
Marxism simply couldn’t produce the goods and the evidence for it was now laid out
for the entire world to see.

How could a good Marxist respond to this evidence? One way is to suddenly
discover that technology and science are, in fact, evil. Stick to the egalitarianism of
Marx but abandon any support for science and technology. This amounted to a psychological
coup. Dismayed because socialism couldn’t produce the goods these socialists
suddenly discovered that producing goods was an evil that needed to be avoided. In one
fell swoop the failure of socialism became it’s most endearing feature. If you strip socialism
of its pro-science, pro-technology viewpoint you are left with the Green movement
as it exists today.

Old time Marxist egalitarianism still thrives within Green circles. As the Memo
argued: “Neither all nations nor all citizens use equal shares [of the planet]. On the
contrary, the environmental space is divided in a highly unfair manner. It still holds true
that about 20% of the the world’s population consume 70-80% of the world’s resources.
It is those 20% who eat 45% of all the meat, consume 80% of all electricity, 84% of all
paper and own 87% of all the automobiles.”

Now such claims have a veneer of truth to them. But the underlying premises are
where the problems exist. The planet is not “divided in a highly unfair manner” in the
sense that no such division ever took place. No one sat down and condemned some
people to live in the Arctic, while others lived where coal was plentiful and others were
sunshine was a daily occurrence. The planet simply is and humanity evolved all over
the planet at different times. There was no initial division of resources that intentionally
favoured some people’s over others. It is no more unfair for one people’s to live in one
place then it is for humanity to live on this planet as opposed to other’s that might be
more hospitable somewhere else in the universe.

To even use the term “fair” in this context is irrational. It is not unfair that my
mother was a nurse and my father a firefighter. They could have been the King and
Queen of England. They weren’t. But this is not a matter of fairness. Some people are
tall and good looking others are not. Fairness is not a applicable to such facts of nature.
Fairness, as a concept, does apply to how we humans deal with one another. But it does
not apply, and can not apply, to the initial distribution of resources on the planet.

But there is something even more fundamentally wrong with this claim. Resources,
in a very real sense, are not distributed anywhere on the planet. A resource is a material
good that we can use. Prior to the discovery of refining petroleum was not a resource. In
fact it was a liability. Anyone who found oil on his land was deemed very unlucky by
his neighbors who, no doubt, thanked God that they were spared this nuisance. Anyone
who has visited the La Brae tar pits in downtown Los Angeles will see how petroleum
was viewed by mankind for most of its existence. It had no value, would kill animals
that attempted to drink it, and was a killer if you accidentally fell into it. It’s presence
was viewed in an entirely negative way—that is until someone figured out how to turn
it in a resource for human use. From that moment on it had value.

If we recognize that a resource is a natural material which is endowed with value
through the application of human knowledge then the fact that some people have, or
consume, more resources than others is not relevant. The real question is what can we
do to help those who have access to fewer resources obtain access to more resources.
But that is completely the opposite of what the Greens want.

Yes, the 20% own 87% of the automobiles. At one point they owned 100%. Automobiles
were invented in the West. It wasn’t that Fords were equally distributed
throughout the world until colonialists confiscated the cars of Third World peoples.
And maybe the 20% consume 68% of all electricity. Again they once consumed 100%
of it. If anything the trend indicates that resources discovered in the West are transmitted
to other parts of the world. What Henry Ford did in Detroit one hundred years ago
now benefits people in the most remote regions of Africa. Billions of Third World people
benefit because Thomas Edison existed.

When first reading Green literature one could get the impression that all this talk
about equality means they want to raise the living standards of the poor of the world.
But this is not true. Paradoxically the Greens argue that all people are equal owners in
the planet yet these people have no right to use these resources. They argue, “every
inhabitant of the Earth basically enjoys an equal right to the natural heritage of the
Earth.” That would be typical socialism. But they go one step further to announce that
this equality of rights means no rights at all: “it still does not equally imply a positive
right, i.e. an entitlement to maximize the use of nature on the part of the less consuming
world citizens.” They make it clear that the poor, who they call under-consumers, are
not to become wealthy at all. “While the over-consumers are not entitled to excessive
appropriation, the under-consumers are not to catch up with the over-consumers.”

True to their egalitarian roots they complain that the West consumes X amount of
the world’s resources. They ignore that the West produces X amount of those self-same
resources. But they are also playing a game of slight of hand as well here. They do not
want the poor of the world to have access to the riches of the West. While they condemn
the unequal distribution of production and consumption they do want to raise up the
poor but tear down the wealthy.

This is to be expected for the same reason that they had to abandon Marx’s views
on science and technology. Socialism was supposed to create greater wealth for all. It
was more than just an equal distribution of wealth but it promised equal distribution of
greater amounts of wealth. Of course that promise again turned out to be a false one.
Socialism did increase equality but at lower levels than before. Instead of bringing the
poor up to the levels of the wealthy it only managed to impoverish the wealthy and
bring them down to the levels of the poor. The equal distribution of wealth was an
illusion replaced instead by the equal distribution of poverty. And now the Greens have
adopted this as their official position. When they complain about unequal usage of
resources they really mean that they intend to diminish Western wealth.

The Memo makes this quite clear. “Reduction of the ecological footprint of the
consumer classes around the world is not just a matter of ecology, but also a matter of
equality.” Note that they want the so-called consumer classes to reduce their wealth.
They condemn the “globalised rich and the localized poor” but oppose globalisation for
the poor to increase their wealth. “There is no point in sacrificing people’s lives in the
present for speculative gains in the future,” is how they put it. That markets increase the
wealth of most people, even the poor, is dismissed by the Greens because the new
wealth is not evenly distributed. Of course the fact that it is not evenly created is ignored
by them.

They argue that “it is not at all certain that the marginalized shared in these benefits”
in all cases. But that is a false argument. Even if new wealth were evenly distributed
to everyone on the planet they would still oppose it. They use the fact that people
are unevenly productive as an excuse to forbid production itself. This is merely a
smokescreen meant to divert attention away from their agenda: the end of wealth production
by humankind.

The Memo argues that the only way to eradicate poverty is to eradicate wealth!
“Poverty is the Siamese twin of wealth. Both develop jointly and neither can be fully
understood without reference to the other. Usually, the poor are conditioned by wealth,
and the rich thrive on benefits drawn from the poor. Hence in our perception, no calls
for poverty eradication are credible unless they are accompanied by calls for reform of
wealth.”

Again Green logic is a wonder to behold. For millenniums human kind thought
that poverty existed as man’s default status. Effort, energy and thinking is then used to
create wealth. Where most people saw wealth creation as an evolutionary process
whereby we left behind the state of poverty the Greens tell us that this is false. Poverty
was created at the same time wealth was created. They developed jointly. But then what
existed before poverty and wealth? We see poor people who become rich all the time.
We see mankind’s evolution as one from a state of deprivation to a state of relative
plenty. But if poverty and wealth actually developed at the same time what was here
before that development?

This logic, however, is necessary to achieve the real agenda: the eradication of
wealth. If you accept that the creation of wealth simultaneously created poverty then
the destruction of wealth will destroy poverty. But of course in the Memo they merely
say they want the “reform” of wealth. Actually they do become more explicit in what
they hope will become the world economic agenda.

As they see it the problem is wealth itself not it’s unequal distribution either in
consumption or production. The idea of lifting the Third World out of poverty and
despair is the wrong policy according to the Greens. These developmental ideas “advocate
remedies for raising the living standards of the poor.” What’s wrong with that? The
Memo answers: “In short, they work at lifting the threshold—rather than lowering or
modifying the roof... Poverty alleviation, in other words, cannot be separated from wealth
alleviation.”

Thus the real Green agenda is “wealth alleviation” and all their policies are intended
to do just that: reduce the wealth of Western “consumer classes.”

In the end the agenda of these Greens is the plundering and destruction of western
wealth not the development of the Third World. They have already made it clear that
the poor are not to become wealthy. They want to reform wealth by alleviating wealth.
And they don’t mean by the middling amounts of wealth destruction built into regulations
envisioned by the Kyoto Protocol. They mean the destruction of the vast majority
of wealth in the world today. The Memo makes this clear: “the global North will need to
bring down its overall use of the environmental space by a factor of 10, i.e. by 80-90%,
during the coming fifty years.”

Wouldn’t this mean a return to a primitive state? Of course it would. But this is
precisely what they want. Remember they are advocates of primitive tribalism over
Western science and development. As far as they are concerned science is a form of
colonialism, an arrogant Western invention which diminishes the true value of “traditional”
societies and their deeper understanding of the planet. That primitive communities
still cling to existence in backwaters and remote regions of the world is alluded to
as proof of their ability to create genuine knowledge. “[T]he success and long term
sustainability of traditional strategies of generating and communicating knowledge”
proves they are useful.

The idea of some primitive paradise has Old Testament roots and eventually
evolved into the secular myth of the “noble savage”. Rousseau’s idea of the “state of
nature”, being one where man lived in perfect harmony with nature, has long been a
favourite with the radical Left. For Rousseau such a state was one where man is “wandering
up and down the forest, without industry, without speech, and without home, an
equal stranger to war and to all ties, neither standing in need of his fellow-creatures nor
having any desire to hurt him and perhaps not even distinguishing them one from another.”
That such a state never existed is irrelevant to Left-wing theology. Rousseau,
like all good Leftists, argues that it was private property that destroyed man’s paradise.
The result of private ownership, he says, resulted in war and misery and the destruction
of the mythical garden of social equality.

The Greens have merely adapted Rousseau’s secularized version of the Eden
myth. That’s all fine and good in its own way but they actually propose public policy
based on this imaginary state. Robert Whelan, in Wild in the Woods, shows that the
Greens, like the Jo’burg Memo does, repeatedly claim that “indigenous” primitive groups
lived in some sort of perfect state with nature before the arrival of the evil Westerners.
He quotes various Green books:

“Green thinkers admire how tribal people live in harmony with their environment,
taking care not to exhaust the land or use up the natural resources upon which
they depend....” [Saving Planet Earth, by R. Kerven]

“...all [indigenous cultures] consider the Earth like a parent and revere it accordingly...”
[The Gaia Atlas of First Peoples, J. Burger.]

“Ancient people knew that they depended on the natural world for survival and
had a close relationship wit the forces of sky and earth...” [The Kid’s Environment Book,
A. Pedersen.]

Anita Roddick, on of the Jo’burg Memo authors, used her chain of The Body
Shop stores to promote this kind of false history. A bag for her expensive soaps and
fragrances had printed on it this claim: “The wisdom of the world’s indigenous peoples
is the accumulation of centuries of living not just on the land, but with it.”

But the “indigenous peoples” were terribly wasteful and destructive. Around the
global such tribes routinely slaughtered animals without concern for the ability to replenish
the stock. Often they saw such “produce” as being provided because they merely
satisfied superstitious rituals. Hence there was no need to be concerned since their actions
had no impact on the world around them. Everything was provided for them by
“spirits” or “ancestors”.

In North America natives would regularly burn down entire forests since they
wanted land where hunting was easier. Buffalo were slaughtered by the tens of thousands
with virtually all the “harvest” left to rot. This was accomplished by stampeding
the entire herd over a cliff. The Vora “buffalo jump” site in Wyoming has the remains of
some 20,000 buffalo slaughtered in this way. Author Alston Chase says some such buffalo
jumps hold the remains of as many as 300,000 animals.

Whelan notes several other similar examples. In Australia the arrival of the Aborigines
led quickly to the demise of several “’giant’ macropodids (kangaroos and related
species). Within 15,000 years all were extinct.” In Madagascar natives drove several
species of giant lemurs to extinction. The Maoris of New Zealand, said science
writer Matt Ridley, “sat down and ate their way through all twelve species of the giant
moa birds.” The Aztecs of Mexico managed to deplete their soil. These are only a few
of many such examples, all of which prove that the Greens are merely creating another
false story to promote their agenda.

Such “traditional” methods of living are destructive to life itself and that’s one
reason that the vast majority of humanity has abandoned them. The Green anti-science
bias is really behind this glorification of traditional societies. For them the question is
whether “modern agro-science replace all other systems of knowledge”. They write:
“Should this new generalizable system of knowledge [science] which is in conformity
with the global market, replace all other systems of knowledge? Respect for cultures as
well as prudent skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of science suggest a negative
answer.”

In fact good old-fashioned egalitarianism, writes the Böll Foundation, is also
another reason for dismissing science and embracing folk wisdom. “Fairness and unmitigated
emergences both demand that community systems of knowledge be given a
chance.” Of course these “community systems of knowledge” not only were given a
chance but they dominated human thinking around the globe for millenniums. They
were abandoned because they didn’t work. They failed the test. But for the Greens it is
science which they oppose. “Modern science has been described as a late form of colonialism
because it assumes the power to define what is rational, innovative, and relevant
across cultures.”

What does this mean? At its root they are saying that there is no such thing as
objective reality. For them science is colonialism which, at its whim, decides what is
rational, innovative or relevant. In fact it is nature itself, the very thing which Greens
pretend to worship, which determines all of this. True science is consistent with reality
and not with anyone’s presumptions or values about reality. A good scientist discovers
facts that correspond with what is real. They are not merely imposing their own whims
as a form of intellectual colonialism. They are discovering facts of nature.

Again this part of the Memo exposes a fallacy about the Greens. When they predict
disasters and doom they always use “scientific” terminology. They talk about biosystems
and ecology. They give long, convoluted arguments about how these bio-systems
work and how human intervention inevitably leads to disaster. On the surface they
sound scientific. Yet in fact they are fundamentally anti-science. More importantly they
are often totally ignorant about science. This was illustrated perfectly when the office of
a Green Party member of Parliament in New Zealand said the MP would be willing to
help a campaign to ban Dihydrogen Oxide (H2O or water). When a hoaxer used this
description instead the common word “water” the Greens were ready to jump on a
bandwagon to ban this dangerous substance. There is no coincidence that as science has
disappeared from the schools that environmentalism has appeared in its place. Nature
abhors a vacuum and when science is not longer used to explain the world then the
irrational claims of the Greens rush in to replace it.

One very important principle of the Green movement makes science an impossibility.
They call this the “precautionary principle”. On the surface it sounds almost
logical. Before a new technology or product is introduced to the market it must be
proven safe. “Technologies, processes, materials, chemicals, and products must be proven
safe prior to their introduction to the market, and the onus of proof lies with the producer,
not the buyer. Where there is uncertainty, ignorance, or lack of knowledge of
long-term consequences citizens have a right to prevent the possibility of irreversible
or cumulative harm. This means they have the right to consider a range of alternatives
including the alternative of taking no action.”

What’s wrong with that? Everything! This is a complete reversal of the burden of
proof. It is the scientific equivalent of going to court and proving that you are innocent
instead of the state having to prove that you are guilty. It pronounces every new technology
as guilty unless proven innocent.

How does one show the long-term consequences of using a product unless the
product is used for a long-term? But usage is banned until proven safe in the long term.
Without perfect and full advance knowledge anything new can be stopped immediately.
Yet perfect and full advance knowledge is impossible. First, the Greens attacked technology
for what they claimed claimed was known. Now they condemn it for what is not
known. The fact is that we can not know everything. If we accept this concept we are
doomed to perpetual inactivity.

This reversal of the burden of proof is necessary for Greens to gain political
power. Under the previous view of “innocent until proven guilty” the person making
the accusation had to prove their case. The Greens have inundated us with accusations
yet they have offered little, or in some cases no, proof to substantiate their claims.
Historically their claims have been proven to be wrong. And most Green disasters now
rely on computer models which project what they think might happen over the next few
centuries. They are now trying to push through regulations which relieve them of the
responsibility of proving their case. But its not a specific case anymore either. It’s a
claim of safety in general that must be proven.

How would anyone do this? How would you prove that you are not guilty of
some horrendous crime? In a courtroom you would demand that the prosecutor bring in
evidence of your criminal action. Then you repudiate his case by showing his evidence
is faulty. But imagine what it would be like if, instead of responding to his accusation,
you had to first prove your innocence! It wouldn’t be possible. You would need to know
what crime it is of which you are accused. You need to know when was it committed,
how was it committed. etc. In essence you are demanding that the prosecutor bring
forth evidence so you can repudiate it. Under Green theology science and progress must
step into court and proves its innocence.

If we applied the precautionary principle to a court of law then every person in
the world is presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Prosecutors can sit
in court without saying a word. They needn’t even tell you of which crime you are
allegedly guilty. And you would have the impossible task of proving your innocence
with no precise charge ever being laid against you. This is precisely what the Greens
want done to modern technology and science.

At first the Green movement appeared to embrace science but that illusion was
only temporary. It quickly became apparent that the great Green spokesmen in the world
had no training in the fields about which they pontificated. Paul Ehrlich, the father of
the overpopulation myth, was a butterfly specialist. One of the favourite books of the
Green Left was Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance which they never tired of praising. Gore
had briefly worked as a journalist but spent most of his life as a professional politician.
What he knew about science and the environment he picked up studying theology. Dr.
Helen Caldicott spoke out for the UCS about nuclear power yet her training was as a
pediatrician. What unites the Green spokesmen is not their scientific credentials but
their political premises. They uniformly support a form of central economic planning
reminiscent of Marx. The difference being that Marx wanted such planning to create
prosperity and the Green’s want it to limit it.

While big business is hated by the Greens big government is not. All solutions to
the imaginary problems that the Greens have discovered requires massive government
intervention into every aspect of human existence. They want the world run like one
grand post office:
“...we propose the creation of a framework of socially accountable production. It
would encompass all commercial activity, from the smallest enterprise to the largest
corporation, but also include government, farmers, households, herdsman and fisher
folk. It we are to achieve real wealth for all people on earth, the mechanisms by which
wealth is created and produced must align with social values, human rights and scientific
principles with respect to biology and ecology. With this framework it would be
possible to examine whether an actor is producing goods or services in a manner that
honors our common rights and our natural heritage. Moreover it would ensure the creation
of needed mechanism and regulatory feedback that will bring about real progress
with respect to social welfare and environmental sustainability.”

And this is where the equal right to the planet supposedly comes into play for the
Greens. Remember this equal right doesn’t mean you have a right to use the planet. It’s
just the excuse used to justify a world government based on Green principles with the
power to coerce people to live in accordance with the needs of the planet. “No single
country or company can claim a property right to the global commons... they belong to
the common heritage of humankind. They are common goods... the international community,
must act as a trustee protecting the right of all present and future generations.”

Now exactly what right is being protected is still very unclear. We all supposedly
have an equal right to the planet but that equal right means very little. They have made
it clear that it does not mean a positive right to use an aspect of the planet. In essence
this right is merely the right for the planet to exist for its own sake with humankind as
passive spectators. They create a right for mankind as a collective which strips men as
individuals of real rights.

This collective, common right to the planet is used, not to justify any actions of
individuals, but to establish international control of the planet. The Greens argue that
integrated economies “in the absence of coordinated international action” makes it difficult
for any nation to actual implement Green policy. “For this reason, coordinated
international action is essential.” In the Jo’burg Memo such “action” is repeatedly
suggested. The Greens advocate a World Environment Organization, a International
Renewable Energy Agency, and a Permanent Court of Arbitration which would settle
all disputes on the environment and world trade according to Green principles.

They want to end free trade between nations. Yet they ignore the fact that trade
between two peoples on opposite sides of an imaginary line is no different from trade
between people on the same side of the line or between imaginary local lines. What is
the difference between two people in different cities from trading with each other and
that of two people in two countries doing the same thing? And when it comes to the
production of food they want it’s international trade stopped completely. They call for
the “exemption of agriculture from free trade altogether.”

They argue that there is a need to “regulate global capital markets” and a need
for a “global reserve currency”. Though they do speak lovingly about a return to a
barter system of economics. They seem to think that because “2 billion humans” have
used barter, mainly in very poor countries, that this again says something important.
They admit that barter was inefficient and cumbersome but argue that with computers
and the Internet “Today, it’s a snap.” All this does is show that the Greens are as ignorant
of economics as they are of science. But they believe that barter will prove the
economic textbooks to be “obsolete” the same way they think traditional community
knowledge makes science obsolete.

The global Green regime needs financing and already they have used the funds
already given them by various governments, corporate donors and others to propose
new global taxes. And they are quite clear that the purpose of such taxation is to institute
a global socialist policy of redistributing wealth from the “consumer classes” of the
West to every miserable serf living under dictators like Robert Mugabe. Of course such
policies in the past have only propped up the dictators who make sure their citizens
remain poor through policies that transfer wealth to bureaucrats and politicians.

Again the Böll Foundation, a Green Party front, has been bleating for global
governance. In a paper entitled “Global Taxes for Global Priorities” they have left no
doubt that the destruction of national sovereignty, to be replaced by a Green world
government, is their ultimate goal. “As the process [of global taxation] moves forward,
we will see the earliest steps in a new global political process. Global citizenship will at
last take form, not as a dream or ideal, but as a real process involving common political
tasks across national borders, to create a common future.”

But to create world government the people of the world must be tricked, lied to,
or bribed. Those in the West, whose wealth is their target, have to be lulled into thinking
that in such global tax regimes only small amounts of wealth will be taken from them—
and then only for the common good of course. Böll recommends such subterfuge, “a
first global tax might be a small measure that sets important precedents while evoking
few powerful opponents because it produces only small amounts of revenue and has
only very modest policy steering and re-distributional effects.”

But this is just the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. ”When nations and citizens
find they are comfortable with this tax, steps towards more ambitious or high-revenue
taxes may find a smoother course to adoption.” Public deception is part and parcel of
Green political tactics. As they have admitted they exaggerate problems in order to
push through their agenda. And their solutions, they now admit, are equally fraudulent.
The small taxes they talk about are just the beginning. And the ultimate goal is global
wealth redistribution. As Böll says, “global taxes would be unconscionable if they did
not result in strongly progressive redistribution.”

They suggest a global sales tax or VAT tax as one means. In fact the Böll report
advocated a good dozen or so such taxes. They particularly liked the consumption taxes
which penalize Westerners for owning things. They argue that such a tax recognizes
“that consumption is a privilege” not a right. So when you eat a sandwich it is a privilege.
Those socks you wear to keep your feet warm are a privilege. The car you use to
get to work is a privilege. In fact, if you read the Greens carefully your entire life is a
privilege. And how much global taxation do they ultimately want? Remember this from
their Jo’burg Memo: “the global North will need to bring down its overall use of the
environmental space by a factor of 10, i.e. by 80-90%, during the coming fifty years.”
That should give you some idea of where they are heading.

If this is starting to sound like a potential Green dictatorship you shouldn’t worry
say the Greens. After all dictatorships are just another way of organizing society. And
since all values are equal then the values of dictators have to be respected as well. As
they write: “There is not just one way to build the world society, as there has not been
just one way to build nations. National societies that have once been formed reconfiguring
smaller social units, such as cities, counties, or tribes, have taken the form of dictatorships,
kingdoms and democracies. Likewise, the creation of the global society, which
reconfigure smaller units, such as nation-states, civil society organizations and private
enterprise will no doubt take different forms.”

Of course governments have taken various forms but that is not what is being
said here. These Greens are putting all these methods on equal footing. And when you
look at the essence of every Green proposal one thing stands out. Each of them calls for
more government control. Each calls for more private wealth to be confiscated. Each
calls for greater levels of bureaucracy to regulate every human activity. And in that
sense they resemble their Marxist allies. The Marxists supported these policies because
they foolishly thought that they would lead to planned prosperity. The Greens know
precisely that it won’t and that is why they support this agenda.