Ezra Levant Screws Pooch – Uses Public Enemy Patrick Moore to Skewer Charlatan David Suzuki

by Zenster on October 5, 2013

in Canada, eco-radicals, energy, Zenster (team member)

This post relates to a video that appears in the “Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore slams Canadian eco-huckster David Suzuki – and Greenpeace itself” thread.

First, let’s start off with a very basic equation:

Pot -> Kettle -> Black

This is the very first time I have ever seen Ezra Levant so totally off base. In his all-too-long lifetime, Patrick Moore has probably done far more to harm our world than even wacko scientist-for-hire, David Suzuki.

As a co-founder of Greenpeace, Moore devoted decades to intentionally conflating, in the American public’s mind, nuclear weapons with nuclear power. With varying degrees of success, his vile work spilled over into the global community as well.

The evil of this cannot be overstated. Billions, if not trillions of dollars were paid out to the OPEC countries, who remain among the West’s absolute most dire enemies. International terrorism and Muslim immigration would have nowhere near the footing they enjoy today without the massive diversion of petro-dollar capital into the MME (Muslim Middle East) countries as caused by over-dependence upon Middle East oil due to the absence of a coherent nuclear power program in North America.

Back in 2007, Moore finally admitted to the world that nuclear power was the cleanest energy source. In his protracted and fierce battle to halt all Western construction of nuclear power generation facilities, nowhere did this ambulatory tumor ever confess that coal burning power stations routinely release more radioactivity than nuclear power plants. It turns out that coal has natural trace amounts of uranium in it and, during combustion, those radioactive elements are released into the atmosphere. Neither will you be told that “scrubbing” such toxic emissions out of a coal-burning plant’s exhaust system would make its cost efficiency plummet well below any economic payback levels.

Instead, Moore spent decades ensuring that Americans—along with much of the entire global community—were terrified of nuclear power in the way that they should fear atomic weapons. We have hypocritical scum like Moore to thank for the 9-11 atrocity and so many other Saudi financed terrorist attacks around the world.

Why Levant is not aware of this or is unwilling to publicly pillory Moore for his role in underwriting international terrorism is beyond me. If anything, many more thousands of Jews and Israelis are dead because of the extra funding that Saudi Arabia and Iran received in lieu of nuclear reactors producing the West’s energy needs.

As to Suzuki, please pay attention to time point 01:19 in the foregoing video where he states:

“Happiness and well-being is the purpose of government and the economy is there to serve those ends, not just steady growth forever.”

Only a died-in-the-wool Socialist could possibly spew such nonsense. No sane person wants their government to have anything to do with their personal happiness. As noted in America’s Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Notice how, quite contrary to what Suzuki says, it isn’t “happiness” that is any sort of human right but the pursuit of it? No way in hell do you want a government to assure your happiness. Whose definition of happiness shall we use? Ayatollah Khomeini’s? Mao Tse Dong’s? I’m sure that the implications are clear. What remains an “unalienable Right” is the untrammeled individual pursuit of happiness and never should there be any government role in providing an individual’s joy. Intellectually corrupt people like Suzuki are fixated on—not just equality of opportunity—but equality of outcome. Unless it interferes with his ability to afford multimillion dollar mansions, that is.

As ex-President Gerald Ford noted in a moment of uncharacteristic prescience:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Any government big enough to assure your happiness is so endowed with unlimited power that your most basic rights could vanish in an instant, if not a lot sooner.

Neither Suzuki nor Moore belong anywhere near a microphone or video camera. Ridden out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered is a far more appropriate condition for those two to be in, if not one hell of a lot worse.

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Uncle Vladdi October 6, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Re: “Why Levant is not aware of this or is unwilling to publicly pillory Moore for his role in underwriting international terrorism is beyond me.”

As authoring his recent book, “Ethical Oil,” proves: Ezra Levant is in the pocket of Big Oil, that’s why.

He’d gladly see some of Canada’s most pristine wilderness literally laid to waste in order to garner a few book tour speaking deals. He’s a totally selfish attention whore.


2 1389 October 6, 2013 at 7:52 pm

Sorry, we can’t agree with you on that. The admins of 1389 Blog support North American oil, because we believe in the free market, and because developing our own energy is the ONLY way to break the power of Muslim oil interests.

Drilling for oil does NOT lay waste to pristine wilderness, either in Canada or anywhere else. In our experience, those who are concerned about “pristine wilderness” have been indoctrinated with the hatred of human life that is promoted by eco-radicals all over the world.

3 Uncle Vladdi October 6, 2013 at 8:20 pm

Check out pictures of Northern Alberta oil-sands before and after:


The tar-sands are NOT economically viable; extraction costs waaay too much.

I’m not against drilling for oil, but blowing things up and contaminating ground-water (“fracking”) is bad for everyone.

And if, as your own article here indicates, nuclear power is far less harmful, why would you be advocating for oil over nuclear anyway?!

4 Uncle Vladdi October 6, 2013 at 8:27 pm

PS: Your silly slanders aside (about me being a life-hating eco-radical) the tar-sands are NOT your own energy interests, they’re mine: I’m Canadian.

And if developing ALL of “our” energy interests is better served by nuclear than oil (as your own article here indicates) why whine about me trying to encourage exactly that?


5 1389 October 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm

We need to develop BOTH.

These are not pictures from credible sources. Eco-propagandists cobbled these together to scare people like you.

For one thing, these are OIL sands not TAR sands. Those sands that are deep underground are accessed by drilling, which does not disturb the surface. Oil sands close to the surface are much like coal mines close to the surface – the mining company is responsible for putting the surface layer back and replanting it afterward.

Fracking has taken place for many decades and the tales of harmful effects have all been debunked.

6 Uncle Vladdi October 6, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Pal, our newspapers here are full of these nuances eveery day. Oil-sands = tar-sands.

7 Uncle Vladdi October 6, 2013 at 8:31 pm



8 1389 October 6, 2013 at 9:17 pm

I didn’t write this article – Zenster did. I, 1389 a/k/a 1389AD, am one of the blog admins. CzechRebel and I pay for the hosting of this blog, we keep it running, and we moderate the comments. Other team members contribute many of the articles. Some team members require complete and impenetrable anonymity; I post their articles under 1389. Zenster chooses to publish articles under the ID “Zenster”, an arrangement which we prefer.

As a matter of practicality, nuclear energy has its place and so do coal, natural gas, and oil. Petroleum products (gasoline or diesel) are by far the most efficient and practical way of fueling motor vehicles. Nuclear energy is great for producing electrical power, but electric vehicles are impractical except in niche markets.

Crude oil + sand DOES NOT make tar. Sand is a geological formation that sometimes contains oil. Tar is a generic term for heavy, sticky substances that are used for paving roads and for making ships, roofs, and other objects watertight. Petroleum tar, or more correctly asphalt, exists in naturally occurring deposits such as the La Brea tar pits, but more commonly it is one of the products of the refining of crude oil.

If you are concerned with the well being of Canada, then it would make more sense for you to insist on proper remediation of oil sands excavations, rather than condemning oil extraction entirely.

9 Uncle Vladdi October 6, 2013 at 10:49 pm

…except that I clearly DID NOT condemn oil extraction entirely.

Above, I said: “I’m not against drilling for oil,” and “if, as your own article here indicates, nuclear power is far less harmful, why would you be advocating for oil over nuclear anyway?!”

And just because it’s been done “traidionally” doesn’t mean we can’t – eventually – replace it; using electromagnetic generators, heck, even burning the hydrogen atoms from water itself, exciting the molecules with radio waves, looks promising these days.

So, since I’m addressing the oil-vs-nuclear facts as set out in Zenster’s article, why did you feel it necessary to jump in with your opinionated slanders? Why not let Zenster reply?

I’m no “life-hating eco-radical,” mate – and I’m kinda still trolling for an apology for it.

And, the use of the word “sand” itself is a deliberate misnomer, in the context of the “oil” or “tar”-sands, because it brings to mind sandy beaches; the tar-sands aren’t near water, are not beaches, and are basically only soil likely to be found elsewhere, other than on “sandy” beaches.

Soil + oil = tar.

Sure, you can get tar by other processes, like drying the crude oil, letting it thicken, but dump some cooking oil into some backyard soil, and watch what happens to it!

Up here in Canada, we’ve been debating the oil/tar-sands projects viability for several decades, since the 1970s at least, and I’ve picked up on it all since the very beginning.


10 1389 October 7, 2013 at 8:36 am

Fair enough…I apologize for implying you to be a life-hating eco-radical.

Zenster can, of course, chime in if he’s interested in participating in this discussion. I assume he’s probably busy writing other articles.

As for sand, at this time I happen to live in a place roughly 100 miles or more from the ocean (not sure of the exact figure). The soil here is white sand; it’s unsuitable for growing much besides timber. That’s because there was a prehistoric beach in the area. Sometimes you do get sand in places that aren’t currently near water.

11 Zenster October 7, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Good morning class … Class!

[/Sister Mary Elephant]

Uncle Vladdi: Why not let Zenster reply?

Well, alrighty then. Nothing better than a good rhubarb!

My take—from admittedly limited readings—is that surface extraction of oil sands is too energy and resource (i.e., water) intensive to be of serious value. The risk of unremediated environmental damage seems quite high.

That said, the importance of Ethical Oil cannot be overstated. Among the West’s top priorities are telling the MME (Muslim Middle East) to, “Eat sand and drink oil.” There can be few more vital issues other than quashing Islam in general. Choking off Western demand for MME oil just happens to be a splendid way of doing that.

Sadly, few people understand that just halting all Western shipments of wheat to the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region could also achieve all of these goals in an even shorter period of time … say three weeks.

With that behind us, advances in slant drilling and the prospect of truck-mounted fusion reactors in the next four years (read all about it in my essay, “USA to Saudi Arabia: “Drink Oil and Eat Sand”) means we need to carefully focus our energy agenda.

Construction of safe nuclear reactors, accelerated fusion R&D, plus drilling and pumping of new deposits (not fracking) seem to rate at the top of our Christmas list. My only concern about fracking relates to geological subsidence plus the question of whether it is happening to squeeze out the last few dollars from existing wells in order to maximize profits when tapping new deposits might be far safer with only a slight reduction in revenue.

The fact also remains that there are huge amounts of untapped oil (e.g., Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Mexican Gulf), and with advanced technology (e.g., slant drilling and pipelines), such extraction facilities—in the case of Arctic facilities—can be set up with a tiny footprint when compared to older operations models.

Feel free to update me if any of my information seems incorrect.

12 Uncle Vladdi October 7, 2013 at 4:37 pm

@1389: True enough!

@Zenster: Totally agree!


13 Zenster October 8, 2013 at 12:35 am

1389, please consider checking in with your own thoughts about what I just posted.

It grieves me beyond words to see such discord arise in the one group that most desperately needs it, Conservatives. All of the Tea Party’s woes are but a micro-scale model of the disunity and inability to reach consensus that currently confronts North American Conservatism.

I mention the Tea Party because Republicans, and the GOP in general, are pretty much beyond all hope. They have so bought into PCMC (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism) that they reside slightly left of center in modern politics. Until Republicans can get their minds right about such crucial issues as Islam, Big Government™ and immigration, they are the enemy and not much else.

One of the many tasks on my editorial desk right now is constructing a punch list of basic issues which all honest Conservatives should agree upon. As noted above, Islam, Big Government™ and immigration are fundamental “litmus tests” that must form some sort of bedrock.

I know I’ll be pilloried for this but abortion will have to be checked at the door. Is abortion a good thing? No. But this is something that can be addressed downstream in comparison to the urgency of Islam and immigration.

One final note on abortion. For all of its moral dimensions, and they are many, the solution is a technological one. Artificial wombs can overcome much of the entire issue but that is grist for another thread entirely.

Both of you, and those who are reading this thread, please work with me to start constructing this agenda of critical issues so that we can begin to search out and establish a truly unified Conservative network.

Thank you.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: