Diary

Environmentalists Want to Kill Us

Damu.jpg (800×571)

I recently read where some students in the Soviet Socialist Republic of California protested to save some trees from a construction project on campus.  Some environmental group got together with some feminist group and decided to kill two birds with one stone.  They marched on the construction site topless.  This way, they could stop progress and free the nipple simultaneously.  I use this story by way of introduction because I get to say the word “nipple.”

It dawned on me somewhere that environmentalists may just want to kill humans.  Of course, they would not say that outright, although some actually did say that outright.  If they do not want to kill us, then they want to return us to some primitive state of being because it is all “communal” and everything (which is why Native Americans are usually also environmentalists).  Thus, they are Communists.  If not Communist, then certainly anti-capitalist.  And so are feminists since they view capitalism as the biggest supporter of an unjust patriarchal society.  So there is a connection between tree hugging and freeing nipples….

And like any good Communist, they are also good statists.  They see the power of an intrusive government as an instrument of good.  However, they are the arbiters of good and bad.  But they are not content just telling you what you should do, but also how you should think about not doing what you are doing.  And they usually cloak it in scientific mumbo-jumbo which can be broken down into a perverted Malthusian equation.

For example, one group- Population Matters- actually suggested that the planet can only really sustain 3.5 billion people which is about half the world’s current population.  Of course we know that to be false because the world’s population is 7 billion and the planet is sustaining them.  If not, they’d be dead.  Sure, some are more sustained than others, but at least they are alive.  So right off the bat, we know that Population Matters peddles pure poppycock.

Today’s radical environmentalist is no different than ones from the past except those in the past were more honest.  For example, Lamont Cole- the former president of the Ecological Society- once said: “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”  This sort of absolves me of those guilty feelings of never contributing to those Sally Struthers commercials on late night television years ago.  Of course, now it is the older guy who speaks while they show pictures of the little Hispanic kid drinking water from a muddy puddle.

But then again, not really.  Dan Savage, that cuddly warrior of the Left, suggested mandatory abortion to keep the world’s population down.  But if they should slip through the grasp of the abortionist, the now deceased environmental activist Carl Amery suggested this:

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

So, to some on the environmental Left, if they’re not killing babies, they are selling 6-year-old kids into sex slavery.  Not all of them, mind you…just the most well-known ones.

When you think about it, they are supporting genocide.  In the alleged capitalist war against the environment, they want to respond with a war crime.  And it is quite racist at that.  What else explains the fact that most of the people who would die if the environmental Left got their way are brown-skinned.  Returning us to some primitive state of being is going to hurt these people the most because they’ll be dead.  Sure, some tribe in Borneo or the Amazon won’t give a lick one way or the other, but those living on the edge of survival are the first to go.  They are also the ones most envious of the very luxuries which capitalism has made second-nature to the rest of us in the world.  The environmental Left is really trying to deny the Earth’s most impoverished people- by and large, brown-skinned people- access to modern life-saving technologies.  I submit that they are the biggest racists out there parading as charlatans trying to save the very people they want to destroy.

And as bad as the actual tree huggers are, even worse are the smarmy financiers of the environmental Left.  They’re the ones arguing that cutting down trees is an environmental crime or drilling in the Alaska tundra should be banned while driving about in SUVs through places like Yellowstone with their kids in tow.  Better yet, they jet there.  They’re the ones railing about urban sprawl and devising ideas like “sustainable living” in huge houses nowhere near that urban sprawl.  They use technology to get their message out- television and their computers- then decry the latest power plant that powers those televisions and computers.  They get to feel good about themselves, and that check to some environmental group absolves them of their environmental sins.

I am all for philanthropy.  If you made it in life and wish to give away that money to a charity of your choice, including an environmental group, great.  But, when you start to advocate policies that wish to keep the impoverished in the their place or even dead, then you’ve crossed a line.  It all comes down to a disdain for the very thing that allowed a Ted Turner or Tom Steyer to make their billions- capitalism.

One of the most leftist of the environmental Left groups is Earth First!  Their leader, David Foreman, once said:

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.

Imagine that- “free shackled rivers.”  They want to free a shackled river and shackle actual human populations to a lifetime of miserable poverty.  Their cause may be considered noble and perhaps their strategies and tactics are a little askew.  Well, at one time some thought Hitler’s cause was noble and his strategies were askew.  Except whereas he aimed to kill about 8 million people, the environmental Left aims to kill 3.5 billion people making Hitler’s atrocities look like a day in the park.