 |
|
“Environmentalism” is not a bad word. Anyone who wants a clean and healthy planet to live in, and give to their children, is an environmentalist. The reason we environmentalists are sometimes thought to be kooky or dangerous is because there are some people who call themselves environmentalists who are quite willing to suspend our Constitutional rights to achieve their agenda. I call these people deconstructionist enviro-nazis. A deconstructionist is a person willing to stop modern progress and dismantle the existing infrastructure. A nazi is a person who will use any devious doctrine available to trample on the rights of others, and to deprive them of their land, property, and jobs, their history, and their future. And all this just to consolidate power for themselves and their comrades, while conspiring to make their victims powerless. In order for a free society to become subservient to a radical minority, the minds of the population must be conditioned to believe and follow a mind-set that is alien, and even offensive to them. The agenda of the enviro-nazis is, on the surface, a sensible and honorable one: stop, and even reverse the increase of all kinds of pollution, stop the desecration of the planet’s flora, stop the massacre of the planet’s fish and animals, and bequeath to our children a nice place to live. I could go for all that. Most of us would. However, the ultimate goal of the enviro-nazis, and their like-minded power-mongers, has little to do with what’s good and much to do with what’s bad. Their allies in the Liberal Media give high praise to the lofty goals, and little mention of the lawless, arbitrary, and senseless practices of these people. Some of these people even have goals that are outright treasonous. If the population only hears the positive side, and never learns the negative side, they will naturally begin to support and sympathize with this doctrine. The propaganda spread by these enviro-nazis tells us that our world, and humanity, is doomed because we aren’t intelligent and caring enough to direct our own lives and futures. The people of America, and the world, must give up their rights to the “professionals,” who can save us from ourselves. We should just do what they say, and don’t ask questions. Read the following quotations and ask yourself if these people have your best interest at heart: “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Great Britain’s Prince Phillip (Founder of World Wildlife Fund): “In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day.” Jacques Cousteau. Alright Jacques, let’s start with your family, and then all the members of your Cousteau Society. Then how about your country. At 350,000 people a day, France could be depopulated in 171 days. Hitler would be proud! “[N]ature will be able to reconstitute itself once the top of the food chain is lopped off – meaning us.” Mike Roselle, (Earth First!) “No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilizing human population.” (pg. 307) “The United States should restore full funding of its share of the cost of international population stabilization programs…” (pg. 317) Al Gore, Earth in the Balance “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion . . .” ecofreak - Stewart Brand Whole Earth Catalog “It’s time for a warrior society to rise up… [and]…be antibodies against the human pox that’s ravaging this…planet.” Welcome to the world of Dave Foreman. Here’s more… “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects… We must reclaim the roads and the plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions and tens of millions of [acres of] presently settled land.” David Foreman (Earth First!) A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching Presently settled land? Where are all these people going to go? To the cities? Aren’t today’s cities crowded enough? Where are we going to grow the food to feed all these bulging cities once the farmland is given back to the coyotes? Where are we going to get the water and electricity for these cities if we tear down the dams? And what if one of these unshackled rivers floods a city and wipes it out? That’s why most of these dams were built, you know. Does anything in your doctrine make sense, Mr. Foreman? I’ve got an idea. Mr. Foreman – put your money where your mouth is. Let’s unshackle the land your house is on. I could have a bulldozer delivered tomorrow. And Mr. Brand, really, the Stone Age? You’re living in a pipe dream. What are you putting in your pipe anyway? The alarming thing is that this radical minority has friends in high places, or hold positions of power themselves. Many elected officials do the bidding of these enviro-nazis because that’s where their money and press coverage comes from. I’m sure you heard of this one. His name is Al Gore. Study his book Earth in the Balance. It’s 385 pages of gloom and doom, sprinkled with intolerance for any who disagree with him, plus a big helping of one-sided science, mixed in with lots of Big Brother bureaucracies, and topped off with a bit of befuddled rhetoric, contradictions, and run-on and on and on sentences. He’s quite adamant in his belief that us little people are such a huge problem and are so incapable of solving our problems that we need guidance from a smarter, more enlightened hierarchy. For example, “When giving us dominion over the earth, did God choose an appropriate technology? [“technology” meaning the human species] [O]ne is tempted to answer, the jury is still out.” (pg. 238) “Technological hubris tempts us to lose sight of our place in the natural order and believe that we can achieve whatever we want.” (pg. 206) The word “hubris” means “excessive pride, self-confidence, arrogance.” Where is our place in “the natural order?” Mr. Gore, the religion that you claim is yours (“Baptist,” pg. 244) teaches that mankind was created in the image of God and was given dominion over the earth. And then we became so “impressed with our own cleverness, we made heroes of our inventors…” (pg. 200) Imagine making heroes out of those bad people who made our lives easier! We became so enamored with one of these bad inventions that, “their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.” (pg. 325) Was it nuclear weapons? Laser weapons? Chemical weapons? No. Cars. And us little people need to learn how to exist more sparingly because, “I believe that our civilization is…addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.” (pg. 220) “We are insensitive to our destructive impact on the earth [and have a] very powerful need for denial. Denial can take frightening and bizarre forms. [I]n southern California in 1991, the worsening five-year drought led some homeowners to actually spray-paint their dead lawns green, just as undertakers apply cosmetics to make a corpse look natural…” (pg. 224) So what. I remember during the presidential debates when someone put bizarre cosmetics on you to make you look natural, Al. Columnist Norah Vincent recently (12/02) said that “script-dependant” “fickle and self-contradictory” “shallow Al” has a tone of voice that is “condescending, supercilious, sanctimonious, officious, overbearing, righteous, [and] reprimanding.” She must have read Earth in the Balance. “[M]any political, business, and intellectual leaders deny the existence of any such patterns [of] the increasingly violent collision between human civilization and the natural world…in aggressive and dismissive tones. They serve as “enablers” [by] helping to ensure that the addictive behavior continues.” (pg. 223) Civilizations have always consumed earth’s bounty. Are we now supposed to go cold turkey? Americans do enjoy a very high standard of living, and do consume a lot of resources, but we also are educating ourselves to the reality of pollution, over-consumption, and wastefulness. And we’re taking steps to solve these problems. “[I]t is no accident that the very worst environmental tragedies were created by communist governments, in which the powers of the state completely overwhelms the capabilities of the individual steward. [T]hese and many other disasters testify to the severe environmental threats posed by statist governments.” (pg 248) This quote is from Mr. Gore, and he is 100% right. After the collapse of the Soviet Union “the world gasped in horror at the unbelievable levels of pollution – especially air pollution – throughout the communist world.” (pg. 81) Indeed we did. The desecration was unprecedented. But on page 79 he says, “What will global warming produce – a new worldwide bureaucracy to manage the unimaginable problems caused by massive social and political upheavals…and the continuing damage to the global environment…?” Al, what is communism but the ultimate form of bureaucracy? It is us little people of the free world who can successfully do battle with the major wasteful and polluting institutions of the world, like faceless corporations, multi-national conglomerates, and big governments. More giant bureaucracies are not the solution. But Mr. Gore’s solutions all involve big government bureaucracies. Mr. Gore tends to use words like “must,” “eliminate,” “require,” and “impose,” when talking about his supranational Big Brother schemes for solving our environmental problems. “We have a clear choice: we can either wait for change to be imposed on us…or we can make some difficult changes on our own terms, and so reclaim control of our own destiny.” (pg. 78) Mr. Gore, a wise person doesn’t use the word “impose” when talking to freedom-loving, sovereign American citizens. And I didn’t know America’s destiny had been taken from her, and needed to be reclaimed “We are hostile to the messengers who warn us that we have to change, suspecting them of subversive intent and accusing them of harboring some hidden agenda – Marxism, or statism, or anarchism.” (pg.224) Maybe not so much “hostile” as “wary.” And with good reason with language like, “some who favor a common global effort tend to assume that a supranational authority of some sort is inevitable.” (pg. 301) “The world’s most important supranational organization – the United Nations – does have a role to play…” (pg. 302) This coming from a man who was almost president of the United States! Shouldn’t that be considered conflict of interest? Or treason? To convince us that we need to submit to supranational bureaucracies he uses dire language like: “the global environmental crisis have led many of us to wonder if survival…is possible.” (pg. 366) “…[G]lobal vandalism now wreaking such unprecedented destruction on the earth.” (pg. 246) “In our frenzied destruction of the natural world…” (pg. 232) “The ferocity of its [civilization’s] assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly…” (pg.269) “The struggle to save the global environment is in one way much more difficult than the struggle to vanquish Hitler, for this time the war is with ourselves.” (pg. 275) “…[T]he abject failure [of our economic system] to even take note of the poisoning of our water…our air, [and] the destruction of tens of thousands of living species every year.” (pg. 185) And here’s the “destiny” thing again…“the threat to the global environment may wrest control of our destiny away from us.” (pg. 277) I believe the main reason for earth’s forests being cut down, and earth’s air, water, and soil being polluted, in many areas, is because of the poverty, helplessness, and ignorance of those who exist under communist or bureaucratic despotism, corporate despotism, religious despotism, or anarchism. If the people living under these conditions had the same religious, political, and economic freedoms as the citizens of the U.S., they could force beneficial changes for their environment. What is needed is more personal freedom. Free people could better educate themselves, which would lead to better political, economic, and technological choices. And better educated people are more likely to see through the lies of religious despots. Population growth naturally declines in countries with personal freedom because economically free people can have wise investments supporting them in their old age, instead of many children. Gore does pay lip service to personal freedom. “[F]ree men and women who feel responsibility for a particular part of the earth are…its most effective protectors, defenders, and stewards.” (pg. 275) “[G]iven the right to govern themselves, free men and women will prove to be the best stewards of their own destiny.” (pg. 276) Once you study his “solutions” you will realize that these are just feel-good sound bites. But first, an example of his perplexing thought processes… “[W]e have now generated vast amounts of data that never enter a single human mind as thought.” (pg. 200) “[C]oping with all that data will be extremely difficult, not least because most of it will never enter a single human brain.” (pg. 210) An how about this take on problem-solving…“The amount of information…about the (environmental) crisis is now so overwhelming that conventional approaches to problem-solving simply won’t work.” (pg.204) Instead of using a conventional approach – defining a problem, studying it, proposing solutions, and finally solving it – Mr. Gore wants us to use a “catholic” solution to solve our environmental problems. The word “catholic” means “universal in extent, broad-minded, liberal.” Does Mr. Gore want us to use opinions instead of science to find solutions for our environmental problems? “[A]lmost every poll shows Americans decisively rejecting higher taxes on fossil fuels, even though that proposal is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies [to] a more responsible approach to the environment.” (pg. 173) Higher taxes. Typical liberalism. How about this one… “All utilities should encourage conservation rather than build new generating capacity…” (pg. 350) Why not both, Al? Gore is very supportive of the government designing better things for us to buy, but “this problem has sparked a divisive debate in recent years over the appropriate role for government in coordinating a national approach to technological development… Opponents of a coordinated approach…believe that government coordination would distort the marketplace and lead to inefficient decisions about allocation of effort, capital, and resources.” (pg. 336) A good example of the government trying to invent something that would be helpful for everyday Americans was supposed to be a safe motorcycle. After spending jillions of tax dollars, our government came up with something that motorcyclists said was ugly, ungainly, and impossible to drive. I saw a clip of someone trying to drive this monstrosity – it was hilarious. Al Gore’s grand world-wide environmental problem-solving bureaucracy would be called the “Strategic Environment Initiative” or “SEI.” “[T]he SEI…ought to…establish a…global program…of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period.” (pg. 325) “The SEI should recommend new ground rules requiring the incorporation of these…designs.” (pg. 333) The “designs” he’s talking about are environmentally friendly technologies designed into building codes. Sounds nice, but until poor people are allowed economic freedom, making houses more expensive will only force more people into tents or caves. “I propose the worldwide development of…a program that would discourage and phase out…older, inappropriate technologies.” (pg. 319) Sounds good, but I don’t think you should phase out poor people’s inappropriate technology until they can afford something better. His program “should” also include tax “disincentives.” What an ingenious way of saying “tax hikes.” It reminds me of his boss referring to taxes as “contributions.” “I favor an international treaty limiting the amounts of CO2 individual nations are entitled to produce each year…” (pg. 345) You mean you favor roping in all the nations who would sign such a treaty. Some of the world’s biggest CO2 contributors have not, and would not agree to something like this. His international treaty is called the Kyoto Treaty and Protocols. In 1997 Gore flew to Japan to speak at a global warming conference. He could have done so by satellite, but instead burned up 439,500 pounds of jet fuel - in the ozone layer – to go there in person. This treaty would likely triple the cost of gasoline in America. Cars would become more expensive to build, some American industries would be hit with suffocating environmental regulations and would be forced to shut down, resulting in more lost jobs. Fortunately our Senate has not ratified this treaty. His program also includes world-wide training centers for “ensuring that the developing nations will be ready to accept environmentally attractive technologies and practices. [D]uring the Green Revolution, agricultural research centers of exactly this sort were set up throughout the world.” But on the next page he says, “[T]he Green Revolution…often relied on environmentally destructive techniques: heavily subsidized fertilizers and pesticides, the extravagant use of water in poorly designed irrigation schemes, the exploitation of the short-term productivity of soils, monocultured crops, and accelerated overall mechanization, which often gave enormous advantages to rich farmers over poor ones.” Mr. Gore, do you actually want these kind of training centers to teach the world about environmental technologies and practices, and that have the power to “phase out… older, inappropriate technologies?” SEI should also have “significant improvements…to safeguard the rights of inventors and developers of new technology” and “better protection for patents and copyrights, improved licensing agreements, joint ventures, franchises, distributorships, and a variety of similar legal concepts. All will be essential to unleash the creative genius on which we must draw.” |