Required Viewing

Hello dear readers.

Apart from Ray Harvey, the other great thinker who I quite admire these days is Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

I am inspired by this socratic dialogue that he has with a Greenpeace Member at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

It is required viewing for anyone who thinks they know the “truth” about the climate change debate.

In this video he epitomizes Ray Harvey’s comments on Love

In the fullest sense, love, charity, caritas, delictio — whatever you wish to term it — is not just another passing emotion; it’s a way of life. It’s a state of mind. It’s the highest. It is moral perfection. It’s the way one should always strive to be — which is to say: happy, kind, patient, relaxed, honest, confident, neither arrogant, nor jealous, nor unjust, always slow to speak and always swift to hear.

Truly a state to aspire to.

If you would like to read some of the Lords thoughts on the subject of Global warming, please visit

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/

Below please find the dialogue.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Socialism

Hello everyone

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while, but I was working on the Society of Free People campaign: “Boycott VWAG”.

In any case I thought I would post this letter I got from a friend of mine. I had been discussing Frank Furedi with my Uncle, and he remarked that Frank had been a Trotskyite in the 1960’s. In any case my uncle coversed with his friend G about socialism, and remarked that “any version of socialism involving more than two people entails tyranny”. I asked him what he meant by that and here is his reply. Posted with permission of course.

_______________________________________________

Hi Mr. Blair: Sorry for the long delay in replying, I’m overly caught up in my technocratic corporate writing these days.

You’ve caught out my middle-aged brain. Despite the minutes-long rant that led to the punchline “any version of socialism involving more than two people entails tyranny”, I can’t for the life of me remember what the basis of my argument was.

It must have had to do with the compulsion and coerced redistributionism that socialism always involves, and this in turn was likely caused by the fact that humans, while morally equal, are simply not all the same, so that some inevitably work harder, do better or are luckier than others, so that no matter how effective you are at creating a system offering equal opportunity, you’ll never have sameness of outcomes, and if it’s sameness of outcomes that’s your objective and your gold standard, you must revert to compulsion and coercion in order to achieve it.

In addition and equally if not more powerful in practice, there’s the moralistic (not to be confused with moral) or sanctimonious/self-righteous dimension of socialists/nanny-staters. When they see their theories not working through gentle or indirect implementation, when they see ordinary humans behaving in ways other than those leading to or advancing the cause of socialism, then they conclude there’s a need for state action to force into being whatever they’re aiming for. All of this involves coercion and compulsion, since it’s aimed at remedying a contrary condition that people have freely arrived at in pursuing their own goals and desires.

The punchline was arriving at the idea that two people of good faith and deep trust might just pull off a socialist micro-economy (perhaps we could say entire families could manage this, and occasionally groups of friends who cooperate on, say, a cabin in the words).

Bye for now, G.

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Adventures in Denialism – Teddy Bears

This story was posted on Facebook by an aquaintance(they gotta change the name of that site to friend s of friends I don’t like book”

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2322656

The person who posted it said “This is sad”

I decided to add my two cents.

M. Luther

What people don’t realize is that the polar bear population is at it’s highest point since we started keeping records. Mainly due to restrictions on hunting, but also there is the possibility of the polar bears being more succesful when it is warmer. If it is indeed all that warmer.

As for cannibalism and infanticide, it is quite common in the animal kingdom – and that includes humans. Of course we find it distasteful, but it is counterproductive to apply your morals to the amoral world of nature.

As for the picture, we just happen to have more cameras around than at any time in history, so it is inevitable that we will capture more and more examples of what nature is truly like. All in all it is a good thing if we don’t have a distorted picture of the world.

Polar bears have evolved to become, like all predators, incredibly good killing machines. This is their nature. And being a top predator, all other living things are fair game. Including it’s own kind.

Someone, noting my post, added this

Mr. Steve Nash

“polar bears have always cannibalized…that’s why the cubs stay with their moms. One problem with global warming is that it’s melting the ice and so the cubs are more exposed to the males than they were before. Its definitely getting warmer up there…there’s been a chunk of ice half the size of BC that’s disappeared roughly in the last 30 years. I saw this satellite image of it on a video that Steve Nash was narrating and that was pretty sad. ”

I decided to reply, but in the mean time another guy decided to follow up.

Mr. Ad Hom

“Polar bears do better in warmer climates?  In that case, let’s continue to pollute, pollute, pollute!  Forget this green garbage! Cmon people, think of the Polar Bears!

But wait…it might not be warmer…BUT if it WAS, and it was OUR fault, they’re better off…but it can’t be our fault cause there’s just no way

Also, the earth is flat.”

Obviously having to defend my honor, I immediately fired back:

M. Luther

Nice one Mr Ad Hom,

I didn’t say it was because the Artic is warmer that there are four times as many polar bears in the arctic as there was 30 years ago, I just suggested it as a possibility – but thanks for trying to attribute it to me. That was a well executed straw man argument + a sweet ad-hom at the end. You must be reading Monbiot or desmogblog.

Co2 is not a pollutant, whatever Al Gore would have you believe, it is an essential trace gas that makes up .035% of the earths atmosphere. It is also plant food. In fact plants evolved during a time when the earths atmosphere had a much higher co2 concentration. One could argue that at 380 ppm plants are currently starved for co2.

Historically co2 has never been a driver of the earths temperature, and it is highly unlikey that it is today. What Al Gore neglected to mention in his movie when he showed the graph of co2 and temperature, I believe he said “now the relationship is complicated”, was that the co2 rise lagged temperature rise by 800-1000 years, not the other way around.

Don’t take my word for it, you can look all this up yourself, it is part of the “peer-reviewed” literature.

While you are at it you may want to look into why top scientists involved with the IPCC are now calling for the head of it to resign, and calling for the process to be revamped so it can regain it’s credibility.

The future of co2 production is now firmly out of the wests hands, it is in the hands of BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China. They have only just begun their long road to modernization, and their co2 production will skyrocket in the future. They also aren’t interested in signing any binding treaties restricting their growth.

That fact coupled with the fact of the utter failure of Copenhagen and the failure of the US to pass cap and trade legislation means that you had better hope the catastrophic AGW crew is wrong, as the earths co2 concentration isn’t going down any time soon.

Lucky for us it they most likely are.

Anyways I am composing a reply to to the previous comment about Steve Nash, I should have it ready later tonight so stay tuned.

Best regards

And then I followed up with my retort to Mr.Steve Nash

M. Luther

Hi Mr Steve Nash, nice to make your acquaintance

Unfortunately the statement “it’s definitely getting warmer up there” proves nothing. The statement may be true, but it does not prove that AGW or increased co2 has anything to do with it. Correlation is not causation. It is true you didn’t say that it was AGW, so I am assuming that that is what you meant. As well claiming that global warming is a “problem”, that Steve Nash has a very convincing voice and ice melting is “sad” is similar to Mike saying that the polar bear cannibalization was “sad”, namely you are applying a moral value to a completely amoral process, that of the changing amount of sea ice in the Arctic. On a side note, I wonder what Mr. Nashes carbon footprint is? I would guess it is pretty big.

That was the genius of changing “Global Warming” to “climate change”, apart from the fact that the globe has cooled since 1998, means that any change in the global climate from a base point – let’s say 1980, is unnatural and caused by human activity. I can think of a completely natural process that again is amoral, but most likely would seriously disrupt life on this planet, and that humans would classify as bad – an ice age. I wonder, if at some future date, it were to be conclusively proven that the globe was warming, and that it was completely natural, do you think that environmentalists would try and stop any attempt at man intervening in the climate to stop the warming? Especially if it was “catastrophic”? Or if a new ice age was upon us, would they try to thwart any attempt to keep the planet warm? It makes you wonder what their true motives are, and in whose interest they are acting.

It is true that in 2007 there was a 30 year minimum in Arctic sea ice, but what you probably didn’t know that at the same time there was a 30 year maximum in Antarctic sea ice. All combined the total amount of global sea ice had not changed much in 30 years. By this winter the arctic sea ice had returned to it’s previous levels. Furthermore note that I said 30 year low. That is because we have only been measuring the sea ice by satellite since 1979. Knowledge of sea ice extent prior to that date is very poor and anecdotal. For instance, did you know that in the 1930s scientists were worried about the arctic sea ice disappearing? It is interesting because this coincides with the warmest year in the 20th century, 1934 according to NASA-GISS. I wonder what the polar bears were doing then.

I covered my points on co2 replying to Alan, so I’ll just leave it at that.

As for what animals and plants will do in the face of the “problem” of global warming, my guess is that will do what they have always done – adapt. Much like humans. In fact humans are very succesful at adaptation. We are so successuful that we have extended our presence into every conceivable part of this earth and into the cold darkness of outer space.

Let’s say that the inanimate and chaotic features of our earth such as warming, cooling, tectonic plates shifting, volcanoes, etc is the problem, then life itself is the solution to the problem. Life has been confronted with the problem of surviving every since it appeared on this earth. Life solves this problem through adapting via evolution. Humans are the product of this evolution, and so by extension everything we do is natural, and part of life. You might say that humans are the pinnacle of this evolution for we are the rational animal. We have the capacity for rational thought, and can weigh our options and make decisions. We place value on life. No other animal does this. Given that the problem is survival, humans therefore are the best chance that life has to survive in this universe. As far as we know, this planet holds the only life in the universe, and it could be snuffed out in an instant by something such as a planet killing asteroid. Humans are the only animal that would be capable of defending life from oblivion.

For that reason we should be very careful of the motives of those who want us to stop, who want us to have zero growth and zero impact. They want fewer humans, and less wealth, less life. They see humans as a disease, a danger to life. They tell the third world that they can’t have what the first world has, and tell the first we should want less.

In order to meet the challenges of the future we will need to adapt, and the richest nations are the ones who can easily adapt, the poorest nations are the dirtiest, and have the hardest time adapting to change. So I call for more of everything, more wealth, more humans, more life.

Anyways if you are interested in pursuing any of the issues I have brought up or doing some research yourself, I would be more than happy to direct you to the appropriate resources.

Any of Bjorn Lomborgs books would be a good place to start.


For Email Newsletters you can trust

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Irony and the Ecofascist State.

From a response to a reader comment on my previous post

I though it deserved its own post

Please make sure to click through the links – they are very relevant, and will help you to learn about the issues.

Not so fast Redmond. I wouldn’t be so quick to pull the Audi television ad. Don’t you think the ad explicitly shows that environmentalists are fascist? An old saying comes to mind, something about giving people enough rope.

It is too perfect that a German company would release an advertisement like that, perhaps even ironic. And the irony isn’t lost on the viewers on YouTube judging by some of the comments.

My Response

Hi Greg

Thanks for dropping by and taking the time to read my post and comment!

Unfortunately the idea of punishing people for their “Eco-crimes” is all too mainstream. We have been punishing private companies for years, it was only a matter of time before we started punishing private citizens. Witness fines for improperly sorted garbage, and sin taxes on SUVs. These are all a type of punishment for what society considers to be negative behaviors. Excessive cigarette taxes or alcohol taxes are the same thing.

As for the irony of it, I don’t put much stock in bored teenagers and hipster starbucks employees. Irony is a defense mechanism for dismissing something as not worth considering. And to a large extent I think it has destroyed our political discourse, it makes it too easy to not care.

Hey dudes, the NAZIs totally killed six million Jews and eight million Russians and caused the expulsion of thirteen million ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe resulting in the death of six million of them, now the car company that Hitler started is joking about secret green police taking people away for having a styrofoam coffee cup! So funny dude.”

Witness George bush making an “ironic” joke about “the missing WMD” in Iraq. Given the number of soldiers and Iraqi citizens who died for that lie, it is surprising it didn’t create more outrage. Ah but it was ironic wasn’t it?

Richard Nixion, who is widely considered to be a tarnished president, had enough respect for the American People and their sacrifice not to take the war in Vietnam lightly. Can you imagine him making a joke in front of the Nation about the Gulf of Tonkin?  But the Rpublicans in that room said “that’s a good one Bush, we all knew there were no WMDs!” In fact the whole nation was in on the joke as it seemed like nobody cared.

ROTFLOL.

Ask the parents of a dead soldier if they think their sons death was ironic.

Ask the 100 000  dead Iraqis if they thought it was ironic.

As the wedding guests in Pakistan who are killed by a predator drone if they think it is ironic.

Ask a slave labour camp worker who built some of the first Volkswagen if they think it is ironic.

Ask a gypsy who was stopped at checkpoint and sent to a Death Camp if they thought it was ironic.

Ask a family of Jews who were seized from their house while they were sleeping if it was ironic.

Ask the millions of German women and girls who were raped by Russian Soldiers if it was ironic.

Ask the Japanese Civilians incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if it was ironic.

Ask why everyone is being so ironic in the face of these crimes against humanity.

Irony in fact is why the “Daily Show” is quite ineffective at fomenting real change or outrage. But I’ll address that in a future post.

Back to “Green Police.”

This is an excellent example of fringe views migrating to the mainstream. Read “Rebel Sell” to see how it happened to the 60’s counterculture movement and environmentalism. There was a point when the idea of checkpoints on our roads would have been abhorrent to most people, now we acquiesce in the name of stopping drunk drivers. So why not have checkpoints for other things? It sounds reasonable, and we “know” we are destroying the planet. You know some people out there would like to have checkpoints for Eco-crimes.

According to a fair number of environmentalists the entire population of the western world is committing Eco-crimes. I think the idea of criminalizing the entire population for completely normal behavior is a very dangerous thing. Because what it really says is guilty until proven innocent. And that goes against our fundamental civil rights. So when politicians start talking about environmental SWAT teams, you should take this seriously. Why exactly are we criminalizing people for breathing? The EPA now says that humans emit a toxic gas – which incidently is plant food and is essential to all life on this planet. And why are we doing this because Al Gore say he was visited by Gaia in his sleep, and he was told to make that science fiction movie?

Look at how well the war on drugs has worked out in the US, have you ever smoked a joint? The the state sees you as a criminal – do you think you should be prosecuted for that action? How about the person who provided you with the marijuana? Should they spend ten years in jail for their “crime” of selling you that illegal drug? And prohibition before it – have had an alcoholic beverage? The state at one time considered you a criminal – does having a beer feel like a criminal action?

The attitude of anything for safety that seems to be persuasive these days is a very dangerous one. It is very easily abused by those in power. In this culture of fear we are all too willing to trade our rights for perceived safety. And the Greens favourite tools are fear and guilt.

Oh yeah but having the state strip search you electronically, recording it, and having your image provide entertainment for the unprofessional “guards” is so ironic. Look at my fat butt and my wifes big tits, not to mention my 7 year old sons penis!!! so funny dude.

That is why I am outraged, and that is why I would like others to be outraged.

You might like to know that Volkswagen and Audi did quite a bit of background research on this, like the do for every ad campaign and consulted Jewish groups. Much to their chagrin it turned out there actually was a Gestapo Unit known as the “Green Police”. Isn’t that ironic.

The deep greens and their fellow travelers are very serious about promoting their agenda. They don’t think it is funny or ironic at all.

They have manifestos

They have instruction manuals

We need to hold them to account for their deeply held misanthropic beliefs, and expose them to the public. We need to make the companies that tacitly support them renounce these outrageous lies they have told.

Make them answer the questions – what are you willing to do to save the planet? How far would you go? Do you believe in Democracy? Should we charge politicians with crimes? Should we force women to have only one child and practice forced abortions on those who do not toe the line?

We have to make the useful idiots answer these questions.

It is about time the public found out what their agenda really is all about.

Zero impact means Zero growth and Zero humans.

Does sound like Utopia to you?

Oh but it is so ironic.


For Email Newsletters you can trust

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

An Open Letter to Volkswagen AG

This post has been taken down pending a new draft.

It will be re-released by the Free People of the World United Against Tyranny on February 21st, 2010.

Best Regards.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Thomas Friedman: Useful Idiot

With his book Hot, Flat and Crowded Thomas Friedman has entered the world of the Futurist.

The term futurist isn’t really used much any more, mainly because futurists are always wrong. Futurism was big in the 1970’s – such people as Alvin Toffler, Paul Erhlich, James Hansen, John Holdren and the club of Rome are famous futurists from that era. Think sideburns, big hair, tight polyester pants, and disco. Who would want to be associated with that tacky garbage. Current futurists inlcude Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, John Holdren, GCMs and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

In the 1970’s futurism became popular because of the advent of relatively inexpensive computing power. Using the magic of mathematics, the veneer of technology, and the credulity of the public and politicians dazzled by the scientific priest class, these futurists were taken seriously.

This is not a happy state of affairs because futurism is a type of fortune telling, which was once trusted by many, but since the advent of the scientific method, has largely been discredited.

This is unfortunate because although futurists are always wrong, like fortune tellers they continue to have credibility with certain people. Fortune tellers are actually better at their job because they are sufficiently vague and their predictions can be applied to a wide range of outcomes. Futurists make the mistake of claiming certainty. So when their predictions do not come true, it should be easy to discredit them. For some reason they are not. I think this is because at some unconcious level people understand that futurism is a kind of fortue telling, and so give them a bit of a break. As my father said to me a little while ago they’ll be right sometime. Sorry dad, but this is not true.

This is unfortunate because political and economic policy is is based on these predictions, and can seriously affect peoples lives in negative ways.

Doubly unfortunate, most of the current crop of futurists are also Malthusians.

Triply unfortunate, these futurists are given positions of power. I. E. John Holdren as Obamas science czar. And James Hansen head of NASA-GISS.

But back to Friedman, I’ll touch on the futurists again in the “future”.

Friedman isn’t a true futurist, as he isn’t a scientist himself. Instead he gathers the various futurist predictions together and mixes them with his personal prejudices and then goes on to paint a portrait of what he thinks will be the future.

One not need to read his book to discredit it, as he has put all of his predictions right in the title. Let’s go through them one by one.

Hot

Given that the earth has now cooled for 12 years, that one seems to have been proven wrong as he was writing it. Too bad he didn’t check the temperature records because he could have changed the first word in his title to “Cold”. Of course as Richard Lindzen said when he was asked about the future temperature, it will either be warmer or cooler. So Friedman could yet be proven right, but not due to any particularly magical insight on his part, instead due to random chance. So maybe we could go with “Temperate”.

Flat

I understand that this refers to his book, “the world is flat“(funny isn’t it how warmists call climate rationalists “Flat Earthers” and Friedman is so filled with credulity when it comes to the warmists?) and describes the rise of globalization, and the increasing spread of ideas and people around the globe. As I write environmentalists are proposing massive taxes on flying, and the British government seriously suggested giving people a carbon ration card. Policies such as Cap and Trade would make travel and international trade more expensive and I am guessing that since countries that enact Cap and Trade would not want to have to compete against a country that does not place an arbitrary price on the trace gas co2, they would put some sort of tarriff on their goods, which of course is protectionism.

On the side of ideas, governments around the world are proposing Chinese style net censorship, restricting the free exchange of ideas they find objectionable, and stifling dissent through over active political correctness. So maybe a better second word would have been “Shackled”.

Crowded

This one requires some math coupled with some common sense. I have read that the entire population of the world could fit within the former Yugoslavia. But that sounds a little bit too close for comfort.

The Netherlands has one of the higher population densities in the world, and it seems like a very nice place to live. The Netherlands (speaking of pot smoking, legalised protituting, Van Gogh killing, of which I am one quarter descended from, Northern Europeans, I have a great story about a Dutch time travelling greenpeace activist, but I will save that for a later post, can’t use up all my good ones yet!) has a population density of 400 per square kilometer, and the world has a population density of 45 per square kilometer. That would mean for the entire world to be as populated as the Netherlands, the global population would have to be 60 000 000 000 – sixty billion. Given that humans can live anywhere on the planet using technology that we have today, it is concievable. So let’s call that outcome comfortable.

In order to be considered “crowded”, like in Gibraltar – population density 4500 per square kilometer – the world population would have to be closer to 600 000 000 000 – six hundred billion. That would be crowded.

Given that the latest analysis of the trends find that world population is going to max out around 10 000 000 000 – ten billion or 67 per square kilometer, and then begin declining due to rising affluence(that is of course if the ecofascists don’t get their way), the world of the future could be more accurately be described as “spacious”

So It turns out that Friedman should have called his book

“Temperate, shackled and spacious.”

Not too late to change the name for the paperback edition. I’ll ask for royalties though.

Therefore you can completely ignore this book, as it will add nothing to the discourse, if anything it could distract us from real problems in the world. Any pronouncements or recommendations for future action should not be heeded by politicians, or the general public, except of course by other useful idiots.

And like futurists before him, no-one will remember how wrong he was.


For Email Newsletters you can trust

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Required Reading

This comment was posted under my last post, Isms

I think it is required reading for anyone who cares about humanity and this planet. the next time you meet an environmentalist, give them this and ask if they support the statements written here. If they do, I suggest you contact the authorities.

In fact I suggest you send this to every one of your elected politicians and ask them if they support these statements.

If they do, I think you should immediately campaign for their defeat in the next election.

I have no doubt that we will have no future if these people are allowed to to hold any kind of power in elected Government.

Ask yourself, do you support these goals? And if so, how would they be achieved? And ask again, what is the real agenda of the Environmental movement?

If  a well meaning Greenpeace advocate came to your door and stated these things, would you give them money for their cause? Confess that you care for environment, and want to make sure it is preserved for future generations?

Would it surprise you to know that some in the environmental movement don’t want there to be any future generations?

Anybody who supports Greenpeace or any other Environmental Organization is a useful idiot.

Who are the real Fascists, the real Deniers? If you want to find out, read on.

Post by Ray Harvey

Nice post, Redmondo. Permit me to contribute:

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs” (John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal).

“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth” (past-president of PETA and environmental activist Ingrid Newkirk).

“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species…. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental” (Ibid).

Quoting Richard Conniff, in the pages of Audubon magazine: “Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance.”

Environmental theorist Christopher Manes (writing under the nom-de-guerre Miss Ann Thropy): “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”

Environmental guru “Reverend” Thomas Berry, proclaims that “humans are an affliction of the world, its demonic presence. We are the violators of Earth’s most sacred aspects.”

A speaker at one of Earth First!’s little cult gatherings: “Optimal human population: zero.”

“Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g., malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere … [We have] an antipathy to ‘progress’ and ‘technology.’ We can accept the pejoratives of ‘Luddite’ and ‘Neanderthal’ with pride…. There is no hope for reform of industrial empire…. We humans have become a disease: the Humanpox” (Dave Foreman, past head of Earth First!)

“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line we … became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth…. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (Biologist David Graber, “Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower” Los Angles Times Book Review).

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’”(Paul Taylor, “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”).

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” (Judi Bari, of Earth First!).

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (Maurice Strong, Earth Summit 91).

David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth, calls for developers to be “shot with tranquilizer guns.”

Why?

“Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet,” he explains.

Also from the socialist Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

Quoting the Green Party’s first Presidential candidate Barry Commoner:

“Nothing less than a change in the political and social system, including revision of the Constitution, is necessary to save the country from destroying the natural environment…. Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.”

From Barry Commoner again:

“Environmental pollution is a sign of major incompatibility between our system of production and the environmental system that supports it. [The socialist way is better because] the theory of socialist economics does not appear to require that growth should continue indefinitely.”

So much for your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed:

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” (Harvey Ruvin, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Dade County Florida).

Sierra Club cofounder David Brower, pushing for his own brand of eugenics:

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

That, if you don’t know, is limited government environmentalist style.

“There’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write history” (Sierra Club board member Paul Watson).

Again from Paul Watson, writing in that propaganda rag Earth First! Journal: “Right now we’re in the early stages of World War III…. It’s the war to save the planet. The environmental movement doesn’t have many deserters and has a high level of recruitment. Eventually there will be open war.”

And:

“By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!”

Lisa Force, another Sierra Club board member and quondam coordinator of the Center for Biological Diversity, advocates “prying ranchers and their livestock from federal lands. In 2000 and 2003, [Sierra] sued the U.S. Department of the Interior to force ranching families out of the Mojave National Preserve. These ranchers actually owned grazing rights to the preserve; some families had been raising cattle there for over a century. No matter. Using the Endangered Species Act and citing the supposed loss of ‘endangered tortoise habitat,’ the Club was able to force the ranchers out” (quoted from Navigator magazine).

It is a sad fact for environmentalists that in free societies, humans are allowed to trade freely.

Among other things, the right to private property means: that which you produce is yours by right.

Private property is the crux of freedom: you cannot, in any meaningful sense, be said to be free if you are not allowed to use the things that you own, including those things necessary to sustain your life. Everything you need to know about a political ideology is contained in its attitude toward property.

It comes as no surprise therefore to learn that “private property,” in the words of one environmental group, “is just a sacred cow” (Greater Yellowstone Report, Greater Yellowstone Coalition.)

That is also known as socialism.

In 1990, a man named Benjamin Cone Jr. inherited 7,200 acres of land in Pender County, North Carolina. He proceeded to plant chuffa and rye for wild turkeys; he conducted controlled burns on his property to improve the habitat for deer and quail. And he succeeded: in no time, that habitat flourished. Inadvertently, however, he attracted a number of red-cockaded woodpeckers, a species listed as endangered. He was warned by a certain governmental agency that, on threat of imprisonment or stiff fines, he was not allowed to disturb any of these trees, which were all on his property. This put 1,560 acres of his own land off-limits to him, the owner. In response, Benjamin Cone Jr. began clear-cutting the rest of his land, saying: “I cannot afford to let those woodpeckers take over the rest of my property. I’m going to start massive clear-cutting.” (Richard L. Stroup, Eco-nomics p. 56-57.)

Socialist Eric Schlosser, author of the embarrassing Fast Food Nation, makes no secret of his statist agenda. As Doctor Thomas DiLorenzo points out, Schlosser lauds the “scientific socialists” (a generic term coined by comrade V.I. Lenin) and everything they stand for: government intervention and bureaucracy, public works, job-destroying minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, food regulations, regulatory agencies to control ranching, farming, and supermarkets, bans on advertising and much more. Only then, he says, will that great day come when restaurants exclusively sell “free-range, organic, grass-fed hamburgers” (Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal).

All of which is simply by way of saying that individual consumers should not be allowed to choose what we want to eat, and that the supply of free-range hamburgers should not be determined by demand. Rather, by law, government bureaucrats must do this for us, regardless of whether we personally want to eat organic, grass-fed beef.

Colorado congressman Scott McInnis confessed that four firefighters burned to death in Washington state because bureaucrats took 10 hours to approve a water drop. The reason: using local river water is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, on the grounds that it may threaten a certain kind of trout.

Further proof of the Sierra’s hatred of humanity can be found in their 1995 attempt to block an Animas River water diversion project, which project was designed to bring water to Durango and the nearby Ute Indian Reservation.

Dams and irrigation are often life-and-death matters in the arid west, a fact of which Sierra is well aware. Thus, after successfully getting the project slashed by more than 70 percent, thereby depriving the Ute Reservation of much-needed water, the Sierra Club lawyers went for the jugular: they demanded the project be cut still more.

Fortunately for the rest of us, they overplayed their hand.

Their shady methods and motives prompted the following quote from Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell:

“The enviros have never been interested in a compromise. They just simply want to stop development and growth. And the way you do that in the West is to stop water.”

From a chairwoman of the Ute Indian tribe: “The environmentalists don’t seem to care how we live.”

Greenpeace is worldwide the largest and wealthiest environmental group. Of their co-founder Dave McTaggart, fellow co-founder Paul Watson said this:

“The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.”

Most people have no inkling that throughout Greenpeace’s tireless campaign against “Frakenfood” (i.e. biotech food – “Frakenfood” is a word coined by Greenpeace campaign director Charles Margulisto, who hates technology), the Third World has steadily perished from malnutrition and famine, as a direct result thereof.

Quoting Tanzania’s Doctor Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network):

“Greenpeace prints and circulates lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.”


For Email Newsletters you can trust

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized