The Degrowth movement

[Votto]

This is the phrase coined by Mark Levin in his new book "Plunder and Deceit". The term "Degrowth Movement" describes what the environmentalist movement has become, or perhaps always was about.

For example,, in a recent interview fanatical anticapitalist and climate activist Naomi Klein proclaimed that "Capitalism increasingly is a discredited system because it is seen as a system that venerates greed above all else. There is a benefit to climate discussion to name a system that lots of people already have problems with for other reasons. I don't know why it is important to save capitalism. It is a pretty battered brand. Just focusing on climate is getting us nowhere. Many, many more people recognize the need to change our economy. If climate can be our lens to catalyze this economic transformation that so many people need for other even more pressing reasons then that may be a winning combination. This economic system is failing the vast majority of people. Capitalism is also waging war on the planet's life support system."

Even though these "Progressives" are really "Regressive" in their pursuit to send society back to the days of horse and buggy, they are still referred to as Progressives. In fact, they define their agenda as follows: "Sustainable degrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. It is an essential economic strategy to pursue in overdeveloped country like the US, for well being of the planet, of underdeveloped pupulations, and yes, even of the sick, stressed, and overweight consumer populations of overdeveloped countries."

French economist and leading degrowther Serge Latouche asserts that, "We are currently witnessing the steady commercialization of everything in the world. Applied to every domain in this way, capitalism cannot help but destroy the planet much as it destroys society, since the very idea of the market depends on unlimited excess and domination." Serge also abhors economic growth and wealth creation, the very attributes necessary to improve the human condition and societies: "A society based on economic contraction cannot exist under capitalism."

Indeed, on July 18, 2014, scores of extreme groups throughout the world endorsed a proclamation titled "Margarita Declaration on Climate Change" (which means "changing the system not the climate").


So there you have it. Climate change activists are not so much concerned about the environment as they are embracing Marxism.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Progressives also get rich off of government.
The obama's and Clitoons, have made millions using their government connections; And millions given them by book companies.
Both males are lazy and immoral. Speak in platitudes, when in reality they lie like hell.

 

[Votto]

Progressives also get rich off of government.
The obama's and Clitoons, have made millions using their government connections; And millions given them by book companies.
Both males are lazy and immoral. Speak in platitudes, when in reality they lie like hell.

Sure. Those behind the movement want to live a jet set lifestyle and enjoy driving around in SUV's and live in lavish large homes. However, the rest of society must contract.

This is why land in Washington DC is so expensive. This is why wealth is centralized in liberal states. Progs who drive policy want to live in the most lavish way possible, while everyone else is told they must cut back.

The old notion that the uber rich are Republican is a dying myth. Money and power go hand in hand. We all know who controls Washington and we all know Hillary will probably win in 2016.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Progressives also get rich off of government.
The obama's and Clitoons, have made millions using their government connections; And millions given them by book companies.
Both males are lazy and immoral. Speak in platitudes, when in reality they lie like hell.

Sure. Those behind the movement want to live a jet set lifestyle and enjoy driving around in SUV's and live in lavish large homes. However, the rest of society must contract.

This is why land in Washington DC is so expensive. This is why wealth is centralized in liberal states. Progs who drive policy want to live in the most lavish way possible, while everyone else is told they must cut back.

The old notion that the uber rich are Republican is a dying myth. Money and power go hand in hand. We all know who controls Washington and we all know Hillary will probably win in 2016.

They stifle growth in conservative states in the name of public land access. In reality they are just trying to stop the growth of more conservative life styles.

 

[Votto]

Here is yet another example of what I'm talking about.

Nonsensible Shoes: Did Bernie Sanders really just blame ISIS terrorism on global warming?

Did Bernie Sanders just blame the Paris attacks on lack of water?

Yes, yes he did. And this guy wants to be president.
But he gets a lot more wrong than just that.
“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.
“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”
Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.
Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.
“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.
Okay, I know you're old Bernie, but do you not recall that 9/11 and the World Trade Center bombing when Clinton was president and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc. all happened before the invasion of Iraq? And don't blame it on the first invasion because countless nations took part in that one, including many Arab nations.
How can someone be that old and still be so sophomoric?
But let me not gloss over the specious global warming link. He's saying that global warming is causing food and water shortages and the unrest that has led to the rise of these terrorist organizations is resulting from lack of food and water. This includes the oil rich countries of Saudi Arabia (for example) where much of this jihadi fundamentalism ferments.
Bernie - this is a radical religious based problem. Period. If you want to throw a progressive spin on it, you're not even doing that right! Try "the problem is religion" or the problem is that "these people cannot get proper education because they are so poor so we need to send them money take in more refugees." (By the way the latter one is racist because you're claiming they are not capable of growing themselves out of poverty). François Hollande, president of France, is a socialist. He's saying France is going to wage a pitiless war. He may not have always gotten it, but he certainly does now. So you can be a socialist without being a head-in-the-sand fool on terrorism*.
Some on the left have argued that Sanders is actually helping Republicans (because he's supposedly too forward thinking). And there is some thought that he's not really in it to win it but rather to get his issues and views into the national zeitgeist for the future. Sanders saying things like global warming causes terrorism, certainly lends credence to the idea that he doesn't want to win.

 

[Votto]

So who is gonna send water to France to stop more attacks?