Posted on 07/25/2009 6:27:40 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
Once the lure of communism seduced the idealistic. Today’s environmental ideologues risk becoming just as dangerous
Anthony Blunt’s memoirs, published this week, reveal a different age, one in which fascism and communism were locked in a seemingly definitive battle for souls. Blunt talks of “the religious quality” of the enthusiasm for the Left among the students of Cambridge.
There is only one ideology in today’s developed world that exercises a similar grip. If Blunt were young today, he would not be red; he would be green.
His band of angry young men would find Gore where once they found Marx. Blunt evokes a febrile atmosphere in which each student felt his own decision had the power to shape the future. Where once they raged about the fleecing of the proletariat and quaked at the march of fascism, Blunt and his circle, transposed to today’s college bar, would rage about the fleecing of the planet and quake at its imminent destruction.
If you squint, red and green look disarmingly similar. Both identify an end utopia that is difficult to dispute. The diktat “from each according to his ability, to each according to his means” sounds lovely on paper. Greens promise a world in which we actually survive a coming ecological apocalypse. A desirable outcome, undoubtedly.
But the means to these ends seem similarly insurmountable. Both routes demand an immediate suspension of human nature.
Ideologies often credit man with either more nobility or more venality than he deserves. In reality he is a mundane creature.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
The Watermelon true believers: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
Green is just the old fashioned communism with a new dress to decieve the arrogant ignorant and foolish of America.
Nah, they’re not really red at all.
Your statement implies the green shell is conciously or subconciously donned to hide the red reality.
In fact, true-believer greens don’t care in the least about the (proclaimed) red agenda. Equality of humans and all that. That’s do 20th century.
Greens don’t much like people, much less be willing to sacrifice themselves for the lower classes. They REALLY don’t like the “lower classes.” Have you ever heard a green talking about the type of people who shop at Walmart? You get the distinct impression that he believes they should be permanently locked up where decent people wouldn’t have to see them.
As the article states, the similarity in the movements is there simply because achieving the goals they do care about will by definition require similar methods because they are both at war with human nature.
In public envy always wears a disguise, else be ridiculed away. The left continually changes disguises as their old ones are uncovered. Conservatives are always conservatives. Leftists have a long list of wrappers they've used and worn out, often hijacking and destroying words like liberal that connote the opposite of what they are up to. Their current hijacked disguise is environmentalism.
The apocalyptic ranting of the greenies is terrifying children the same way that nuclear nightmares frightened a generation during the cold war.
Environmentalism cloaks itself in a rationalist facade. In reality it is a perversion of the religious sentiment and should be eradicated.
When the Soviet Union died, the reds turned green.
Except that the apocalyptic prospect of nuclear war was quite real.
The doomsday nature of environmental threats is at most a possibility, it is not a fact in the same way the potential for nuclear annhilation was.
(And still is, BTW. Although a lot less likely than 30 or 40 years ago.)
Doesn’t the 1st amendment state that congress shall make no law establishing a religion? It sounds like that is exactly what gov’t has done with the enviromental movement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
