As we’ve noted, climate alarmism is in trouble on two key fronts. First, the supposedly solid science behind the panic is collapsing, and second, the supposedly easy policies to bring about a green energy transition are turning out not to work. Some people would rein in their ambitions. But if you hold one of those cosmic, generally left-wing worldviews in which all good things are bundled together, and all bad things, you double down on your ambitions in theory when your methods fail in practice. And hence Canada’s Green Party, aka the Elizabeth May cult (inexplicable, but true), puts out a press release “Greens support the International Peace Charter”. Though evidently they couldn’t manage to post it on their website which makes you wonder whether they’re not slightly overestimating themselves in planning to fix the weather and attain world peace simultaneously.
The International Peace Charter, in case you don’t have it on your wall, starts out:
“Commit to cultivating World Unity, Peace, Compassion, Cooperation, and Mutual Respect across nations and communities and the cessation of military conflicts by ending all forms of military conflict and to renouncing war, armed conflict, and all forms of organized violence as tools of policy.”
The Green Party’s sympathy for Israel’s most appalling enemies makes you wonder what exactly is wrong with these people. But soft. We’re just getting started. Under the heading “Environmental Peace” we actually get something that reminds you of the environment, if not of any practical plan you ever heard of:
“Commit to respect and reverence to Nature and Mother Earth. Prevent conflict by addressing climate risks, resource scarcity, and ecological degradation, and by ensuring fair access to land, clean water, food sovereignty, and renewable energy for all.”
Prevent conflict by addressing climate risks. OK. Show us how. Do we stop blowing CO2 at China? Or make them stop blowing it at us? Tricky. They have nukes.
Possibly the plan is to take possession of their minds:
“Commit to promoting meditation in public institutions and communities to enhance well-being, reduce stress and violence, and strengthen empathy and collective harmony by raising the collective consciousness as we are all interconnected.”
Raising the collective consciousness. Xi Jinping will say “Ommmm” and all will be well. And if not, we’ll disarm him:
“Commit to the progressive reduction of conventional weapons and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. End the profit motive in the arms trade, and redirect resources toward education, health, meditation and human development.”
Just that? Heck no:
“Commit to limiting militaries to defense, civilian protection, and lawful peacekeeping, and to prohibiting offensive operations or foreign intervention that undermine stability.”
The problem isn’t limiting your own military to defence. It’s limiting theirs. But again, they’re not limiting themselves to such paltry ambitions as defending freedom. Instead:
“Commit to healing the wounds from historical conflicts through truth-telling, reparations, trauma-informed support, meditation and community reconciliation, restoring trust and social bonds for world unity and peace.”
OK, they only have one MP at present, president-for-life May. But onwards and upwards.
This article finally made me understand your psychology and why 'Iran bad, Israel good' makes sense to you. You're still under the impression that violence should be met with more violence. This is why Israel, a nation that was literally created on land taken by military force from the people that were already living there (which they resented, imagine that) is now seeking more room to live in Lebanon and Syria and Egypt and is getting support from otherwise sane people. It reminds me a lot of something some Austrian fellow used to shout at German crowds in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Also how people were massively going along with it, because they believed that government-initiated violence was somehow going to end problems instead of causing more.
The only way to end wars is to disband your army. All of it. A small police force to protect from random pirates makes sense, but that's it. No standing army, no navy, no airforce. If someone decides to conquer you: nobody dies. Also, you didn't spend billions on stuff just meant to harm or kill other people, so you can actually do something useful with the money.
Make love, not war. Also by proxy: speak love, not war. However just you think your cause may be, I guarantee that the other side disagrees. By speaking love and understanding, they may actually start to listen instead of pointing a gun at you...
When you break down what is involved in environmentalism you arrive at the notion of omniscience which, once presumed, results in a zealotry that is unshakeable by arguments involving science and logic and for most in the cult, the green is a veneer over the underlying red that gives that little coercive push to enable deploying that omniscience to control the infidel masses. For the average green, their votes are now strategically directed at either the NDP or Liberal which has the best chance of defeating the satanic moderates self-identifying as Conservatives. The greens of Lizzies riding are an epicenter of unsustainable, escapees from industrial civilization along with the regular South Coast retired participants in the hospice economy.
So your solution to a conquest by a hostile power is to... just not do anything? "If you don't resist no one dies!" Never mind that this often isn't the case, as has been demonstrated countless times by history, not having the means or will to defend yourself doesn't result in people leaving you alone. It makes people think you're an easy target. We can see this on a more abstract level with the large scale immigration into places like Europe. The migrants going there don't see Europeans acceptance of them as a display of care and kindness. They see it as an opportunity to exploit naive idiots, as demonstrated by the fact that as they're numbers increase, they have rejected many of the same values that allowed them to enter in the first place. Any nation that lacks a military today does so because they have either the explicit or implicit protection of a far larger military power. The reason for the relatively peace of the post WW2 world was only possible because of the military dominance of the USA and to an extent the USSR, who both prevented large scale conflicts through force of arms and Nukes. What I read here is something I have not seen uttered by human mouth this side of the Late 60s. You should be in a museum, with that level of outdated beliefs. What you wrote was a longer way of saying "why can't we just all sit around the fire, holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya'?", which besides the fact that song is terrible, it's because that only works until someone at the fire realizes they can gain so much more by just taking the other guy's stuff.