“Don’t vote Green until they drop the anti-science zealotry”, says Tom Chivers of the Telegraph.
Well, obviously. The first three words would have sufficed. It is not that I disagree in the slightest with the thrust of Mr Chivers’ article – he rightly condemns a Green Party plan, now apparently dropped, to have some sort of mass vandalism party directed against an experimental crop of GM wheat. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the point of the experiment was to try and produce a type of wheat less reliant on pesticides. That the Greens are Luddites should surprise no one. It did surprise me that it surprised Mr Chivers. How does one get to be assistant comment editor of the Telegraph? I would have thought that the knowledge of political affairs required to qualify for that post would disqualify one from being able to write, other than as a joke, the following:
I actually like the Green Party. My dad used to be, and may still be, a member. They’re well-meaning and many of them share my taste for unkempt beards. I think I put Jenny Jones as my first choice in the London mayoral elections.
But the trouble is that they’re scientifically illiterate and have what seems to be a fear of technological process.
In other news, Queen Anne’s dead.
Mr Chivers shared his Platonic cave with Mr George Monbiot of the Guardian. He has recently noticed that Noam Chomsky and John Pilger are quite happy to flirt with genocide denial so long as the deniers oppose the United States.
Scientific illiteracy is the quintessence of Greenery. A Green Party without “anti-science zealotry” or a “fear of technological progress” is a logical inconsistency, like dry water. Anyone who seriously thinks it’s possible is a fool.
I overheard a clutch of socialists talking about the Telegraph the other day. They said they quite liked it, and that it is now edited by socialists. How true that is, I have no idea. Maybe they were just boasting.
While not religious, I do believe in a form of cosmic justice.
Reality will always win.
Chickens will always come home to roost.
Fools and knaves eventually are rewarded with the judgement of history their lives deserve.
And, if there is an afterlife, these fools will spend it in a pool of the spit from all the children they have kept from having a healthful diet by their mindless opposition to any innovation.
Your choice of pool contents may vary.
We have a perfect example of that here in Ozland! Labor needed minority party votes, including the greens, so we have a carbon tax, which our PM had promised she would never-ever introduce! The only party that had wanted it were the Greens! We’ll only have paradise when we’ve wiped out all these pesky minorities……
Something I didn’t expect to ever say…I actually really like that George Moonbat column.
Chomsky and Pilger are denying the Rwandan genocide?
Er, yuck.
In Boganstan the Green/Labor Coalition is destroying the Labor party regardless how much the Meeja campaign for them.
Chomsky has form for this sort of thing. It hasn’t preventedhim becoming a pin-up of the Left; in fact I imagine it helps.
As for the Greens, non just anti-science. It anti-people.
The Telegraph has a fairly eclectic mix; some, like James Delingpole, are tremendous, but this character seems bit wet behind the ears.
Michael Jennings writes, “Chomsky and Pilger are denying the Rwandan genocide?”
They haven’t even got enough decency to do that plainly in a way that can be easily confronted. They are denying it in a deniable way, saying that the works of the outright deniers “raise interesting questions” and the like.
You see Chivers has given the Greens a chance to respond with a post on his blog?
Marvellous quote from Jenny Jones of the Green Party: “Tweeters have ‘insulted’ me by call [sic] me a Luddite. Those fiery English artisans destroyed factory equipment because they were opposed to being forced into low paid, low skilled work for capitalist factory owners. What better example of a reasonable cause involving damage to property?”
Well, at least she’s not denying it.
I see that Jenny Jones’ knowledge of history is every bit as extensive as her knowledge of science and economics. Comprehensive ignorance and moral arrogance wrapped up in one tidy package. Quite efficient, actually.