Click to get your own widget

Tuesday, February 22, 2005


From the Times & generally going round the anti-green bits of the net:
WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

"We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,"; one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view."

Another said: "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot." Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: "Sod off, Swampy."

The things that get me about this in order of increasing importance are
1) the remark about Cockney barrow boys is quite indicative of exactly where the Greens stand in Britain's class war. The Greens do not represent oppressed workers but middle classes who are afraid that technological progress is taking away their social privileges & are trying to hold onto them by force. You can see this in their horror that air travel is becoming so cheap that even common types can holiday on the Seychelles. It is also obvious in the fact that their best votes are not in Springburn or even in rural constituencies but in such centres of environmental deprivation as Hyndland & Morningside. Also the funding which keeps the whole Green movement going comes from the Foundations set up by the established super-rich.

Actually this is very similar to the original Luddites who were relatively well off weavers who opposed the introduction of mechanical weaving. They were in the wrong but I have sympathy for them because they lived on the breadline - modern Luddites aren't even trying to keep their luxuries they are merely trying to ensure the Jonses don't catch up.

2) I only caught this side of the story today from the net & it is only published in this form by the Times & Washington Post. When I first heard it on the BBC they reported a successful attempt by Greenpeace to occupy the Exchange. So the BBC were, at best, taking Greenpeace's initial pre-written press release of a great success verbatim & putting it out as news.

Judging news either as something new & unexpected or simply as entertainment the fact that they got kicked out is much the better part of the story but most of our media either chose to print only Greenpeace's PR without checking or checked & decided to suppress the real story.

So is it OK to beat up protestors who are middle class? Surely such violence is always wrong, the protestors and the delegates should be free to make their points.

People from all areas support the greens, generally the better educated the more support. Its our failing educational system that means the poorer the area the fewer gradutes.
The violence was intiaited by the middle calss protestors. The barrow boys defended themselves - successfully.

The hypocrisy of you eco-Nazis defending violence on the grounds that violence is always wrong is entirely predictable. I note however that you do not, from your personal experience as someone describing himself "graduate engineer" whose only use of this qualification was to help your pals build straw houses, you don't dispute that the Greens are largely drawn from the more parasitic portions of the middle class.
Not for the first time, you get it wrong. Greenpeace wernt violent, they were howver according to your blog attacked.

I use my qualifications to work on many building sites, i've built conventional office blocks, houses, shops as well as eco projects like cycle paths houses from straw bales and tyres. Why do you make statements about things you know nothing?

Greens come from many different backgrounds, like our supporters most are well educated. Do you think this makes us middle class? I suspect you have a bit of a problem with the middle classes, which these days means most people.
The were trying to take over the exchange. That is, by definition, initiating a violent act. In the same way when Hitler invaded Poland it was him not the Poles defending themselves who were in itiating violence.

I know that you have used your alleged qualification in argument with those you don't know you but not among those who will be familiar with you, which would be a very strange disparity if the degree existed. I also know it is behaviour demonstrated online many times before by eco-fascists.
Some quotes you missed out from the Times story.

“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.”

“They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately,” a photographer said. “It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back.”

Mr Beresford said: “They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”

Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.

Not taking over anything, making a protest. Non violent acts met with thuggery, and you defend them, shame on you. You love to use words like co fashists, you merely show you know nothing about greens, as you know little about me and my qualifcations. You choose to turn a debate into a personal attack on me, which is a sign of you loosing the argument.
"they tried to push hugh filing cabinnets on top of us to crush us"

Presumably they failed in this unique method of assault. Presumably the police didn't believe them either.

I accept your claim that attacking the Exchange wasn't violent as representing the standard of honesty to be expected from eco-fascists. Not being a total hypocrite you will be on record as saying the same about the brownshirts who occupied Jewish shops.

I am not making a personal attack on you, quite the reverse since you came here, but on eco-fascism as a movement. That you with your alleged but clearly non-existent degree, ignorance, double standards, hypocrisy, inability to spell fascism & general contempt for the truth exemplify the movement is not my fault.
Perhaps you can spell fascism but you dont seem to know what it means, and your punctuation is creative. You also dont seem to understand the meaning of a personal attack, rather than come up with better arguments you try to attack my education, which is irrelevant.

For your information I have a BEng in Civil Engineering from Westminster University and an MSc from Southampton Uni, but why does this matter to you?

My grandparents suffered at the hands of the fascists, many of their friends and relatives were killed, they were lucky to escape. If you cant tell the difference between a peaceful protest and a military invasion that tells us a lot about you.

Do you think Gandhi was a fascist? Would you have beaten up women campaigning for their right to vote in the 1910s?
Not only did Ghandi not occupy the London Metal Exchange he didn't occupy other people's private property at all (nor did he denounce people of lower classes as "barrowboys").

Your ignorance of the subjects on which you pontificate is entirely to be expected.
Typically you don't answer the question, but once again attack me.

Gandhi was well known for peaceful protests, once illegally making salt, which helped bring about the end of the British empire. Would you have arrested him?
I thought I had but to make it obvious even to you I do not think Ghandi was a fascist Indeed I see nothing whatsoever in his philosophy which would lead an even moderately informed person to ask such a stupid question.

As a supporter of economic freedom I have never suggested that making salt from seawater (of which there is an inexhaustible supply) should be criminalised. Next thing you will be saying that because I have not specificly, on this thread, said people should be free to release carbon dioxide into the air I must be a fascist, because that is another sign of fascism.
Once more you launch personal attacks rather than reasoned argument, perhaps you enjoy insulting people. Perhaps this reveals yet more about you.

You claim the greenpeace protest was like the Nazis invading Poland, because the protestors broke the law. So you like to make the crimes of the Nazis sound commonplace, indeed you seem to feel that just about everyone you disagree with is a fascist.

And while there is a huge amount of seawater, its not inexhaustable. Oil and Uranium once seemed equally large resources, but they are running out.
In human terms seawater exists in quantities greater than we could exhaust which does make it literally inexhaustible though not infinite, which may be the concept you are grasping for. This is a very foolish point for you to stand on.

Uranium (& Thorium) exist in quantities which would allow us to run the world at present rates at least until the sun explodes, which makes it pretty close to literally inexhaustible.

Your apparent position that no action of the Nazis should ever be compared with those of anybody else, while good news for Pol Pot or those Greens who killed 70 million people, is not valid. The Nazis were evel because of their actions not because of the uniforms. Pretending it is nothing to do with their actions merely legitinmises those who have done similar, or worse, like your movement.
I photographed prints and also try to find individuals whereas acquiring elevation on your topic.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.