By Michael Vail - BlackListedNews.com
The basic tenets of conservatism were sound before it was turned into a rabid fundamentalist religion. Everyone wants clean air, water and good food and that has nothing to do with governments or its policies. Most people believed in a common sense approach when it came to their world until the beginnings of the industrial revolution. There were many who believed that the world was developing too quickly, having too many children and the earth resources would dry up completely. It was a craze like no other. In the late 1960’s and early 70’s that craze turned into a mass consciousness called environmentalism. This was radically different from its sister conservatism. Environmentalism unleashed upon the populace a mass hysteria and had its leaders demanding the governments of the world initiate policies to correct the damage that was done. This craze was furthered by drawing upon legitimate grass roots issues like pollution. They cast a very wide net in their attempts and later would ‘come up with the idea’ of global cooling, global warming and later climate change which of course covers all the bases so that they wouldn’t be proved wrong.
“To summarize the Malthusian doctrine, there can never be more people than there is food for. There will not be less, because man, like every other animal, tends to increase in numbers... The straightforward way of striking the balance is nature's method of creating an excess and then killing it off by plague or starvation. Malthus himself, and other more recent writers also, have attempted to propose solutions which should allow us to escape from this threat, but nobody has found one which is at all convincing. –Charles Galton Darwin(The Next Million Years)”
“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” –Maurice Strong
Environmentalism spread like wildfire but behind the scenes there were think tanks such as the Club of Rome, Sierra Club and the World Resources Institute which turned environmentalism on its head and decided that mankind[1] itself is the problem. This brings us back to Thomas Malthus who spoke of limits of growth[2], eugenics, and depopulation.[3] If mankind is the problem what is the solution? Of course it is not all humanity that will suffer just the uncivilized proletariat; the intellectuals must survive to fulfill their goals. Now, knowing that these ideas are not new what policies do we see today that are in line with their project?
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. According to this master plan diversification among cells is determined by the requirements of the various organs; the size and shape of the organs and, therefore, their growth processes are determined by their function, which in turn depends on the needs of the whole organism. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system” –Club Of Rome(Mankind At The Turning Point)
The truth is that most environmentalists do not understand the nomenclature, the history or the real architects behind their cause. It sounds good, feels good and they see that it is something that they can take pride in. The upper echelon engineers of the environmental movement have created their own language which seems fairly innocuous but serves a purpose in its different byzantine meanings. The words Sustainable Development comes to mind. A house is a sustainable development as it sustains life and keeps us from the elements but they have their own ideas of what sustainable really is. On a rudimentary level sustainable means rigidly earth friendly. Living in rural areas is not earth friendly, they want every last one of us living in high rise urban slums so that the animals can roam freely without being disturbed by ‘humanity’.
No comments:
Post a Comment