Mass murder and green ideology

BrookesNews.Com ^ | 25 April 2003 | Gerard Jackson

[Tailgunner Joe]

It is no exaggeration to say that the twentieth century has probably been the most momentous of any other. It gave birth to the greatest technological marvels in human history. It also fought the bloodiest and most extensive wars in history, simultaneously fighting virtually over the globe.

It was also been the century that saw the rise and fall of totalitarianism — or did it? Ideology is the foundation stone of every totalitarian structure, whether it be Communism, Nazism or Fascism. Not any ideology, of course, but one that justifies the subjection and destruction of one's fellow man.

Totalitarianism means what it says: total control. The ideology rationalises that control and the use of the power needed to enforce it. Totalitarianism brings home with bloody force Lord Acton's dictum that absolute power not only tends to corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

One only has to read Lord Liverpool's account of Nazi atrocities or other books like Victor Kravchenko's I Chose Freedom, Nikoli Tolstoy's Stalin's Secret War, Robert Conquest's The Harvest of Sorrow, Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to realise the savage horrors of totalitarianism.

The appalling role that Western intellectuals played in supporting totalitarianism has been amply documented by genuine scholars. (See, for example, Paul Hollander's Political Pilgrims). That many, if not most, of these intellectuals are irredeemable is borne out by the depressing fact that in Australia we still have university lecturers who have never apologised for supporting Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot. Instead, these same intellectuals still use every opportunity to attack what they deem capitalist countries.

The delusion that a humane totalitarianism is possible was exploded by Hayek's brilliant book The Road to Serfdom which lucidly explained why the worst will always get to the top in any totalitarian state.

All of this brings us to the greens. Not because most of them are obviously anti-capitalist and therefore socialists, but because of their contempt for human welfare, except their own. One thing that marks out a totalitarian movement is its contempt for human life. In this respect the greens stand shoulder to shoulder with the Nazis and the Reds. It was green ideologues that forced through the totally unjustified ban on DDT. A ban that killed over 20 million Third-World peasants and is still killing about 2 million a year.

A ban that causes immense misery and pain to those who are least able to defend themselves. Yet greens refuse to acknowledge this misery. Why? Because they despise the victims; the untermenschen whose aspirations for a better life challenge the comfortable existence of the Herrenvolk. That is why Greens still support the ban. That is why they violently oppose economic growth; that is why they oppose cheap energy, genetic engineering, man-made pesticides, intensive agriculture, etc.

Why else do you think prominent greens could callously advocate a policy of denying starving peasants aid in food. And this is why Dr Charles Wurster defended the ban on DDT, because in his own words, "this is as good away to get rid of them [people] as any". And this was while he was still chief scientist for the Environmental Defence Fund. As expected, the EDF did not repudiate his views.

No, our totalitarian greens do not use gas chambers, death camps, firing squads or torture chambers to rid themselves of the lesser people. What they try to do is deny them life-saving chemicals and technology. Green policies are killing millions of peasants. This is mass murder and those responsible should be held to account.

[cake_crumb]

"I'm all for hammering on the Greens and totalitarianism, but that and most other pesticides are simply unneccessary and mostly toxic to humans. Somebody educate me"

Not humans. It's toxic to some species of birds. When the banning campaign was ongoing, it was said to be toxic to all species and to humans. Later, it turned out that the effect on humans is negligable, but birds ARE still affected.

The part about the DDT ban causing so much starvation is true. Mostly locusts. On the other hand, extremely beneficial birds were becoming extinct, because their eggshells were soft, and the embryos killed due to squishing. The birds are safe now, and I for one hate to lose them....BUT there has been no other effective pesticide to replace it, and research is greatly hampered due to the insane, ever growning blob of worldwide regulations which sprang from that one successful battle.

The article could have been better written.

[mvpel]

Here's a graph of the malaria rate in the US from 1912 to 1970, shown by the bright blue line - notice the essentially zero rate as DDT went into widespread use in the 1950's:

http://www.healthsentinel.com/Vaccines/DiseaseAndRelatedData.htm

[narby]

To add to that. DDT has been shown to be effective in African tribal huts by just painting the INSIDE of the hut with DDT laced paint. No DDT is released into the environment at all. It is absolutely non toxic to the humans. But Mosquitoes have evolved a strong dislike to be around DDT, and will not even enter the building where it is, thus preventing almost all malaria infections because they usually happen from bites at night time in the home.

But the Green Nazis will not even support this practice. They arm twisted the last country in Africa (can't remember which one) into stopping this a few years ago, and now malaria rates are skyrocketing there.

Greens don't care about the fact that DDT used this way cannot harm the environment whatsoever. They just want people dead. This is not hype. Its true.

[cake_crumb]

Uh....make that successful battle from the ENVIRONAZI perspective. I've noticed a HEAVY presence of the morality police since the fall of Baghdad....people have noticed it's the beginning of another election cycle.

[narby]

extremely beneficial birds were becoming extinct, because their eggshells were soft, and the embryos killed due to squishing.

I've read that this "fragile egg shell" effect was from a single study in the early 60's where they were testing DDT toxicity on birds by feeding DDT laced feed to ducks. The ducks didn't have any toxic reaction to reasonable levels of DDT, but their eggs were fragile.

It turns out that the analysis methods available in that day required the researchers to feed them calcium free feed, while the control group had normal calcium feed. Naturaly, their eggs were fragile, but initially this wasn't the object of the study, so the difference calcium in feed was not noticed.

Observation of broken raptor egg shells in the wild were seen as proof (go looking for something, and you'll probably find it). However, there is a normal rate of egg breakage, and apparently there were no studies that proved the egg breakage rate was any higher than "normal". They did find DDT in the eggs, if I remember right, but that is hardly surprising, and not proof that it was the cause of the fragility.

Some bird populations did decline in areas of high farm DDT use. But this is undoubtedly because DDT killed their food source, not because of DDT toxicity in the birds themselves.

I hope the article I read on this was accurate. It does none of us any good to spout controversial stuff like this, if it is not factual. However, this seems right in line with the what I've observed of the Green movement. They don't give a tinkers D@mn about people, or even about the environment. They just use it for power, and for a profession, except for the majority "useful idiot" crowd that supports them.

[cake_crumb]

I remember when the tidbit that ruined the test results came out. A lot of people called for more tests, using more modern methods of scientific methodology. I agree.

I'm just going from memory, but not only ducks were affected. The hardest hit species were apparently predatory birds. The numbers of raptors are recovering at a very comforting pace - unless you're an envirnazi, because then no matter how prolific a species is, it's 'endangered'.

Most people just figure that the lack of insects were starving the animals that prey on the insects, which then caused starvation in animals that preyed on them.

NOW...because the study results are worthless, I must make the point that we'll never know whether raptors were really affected by the DDT, or some other, entirely unrelated factor. The Greenies and their useful idiots are proof: science and politics NEVER mix. Also, as I pointed out, we have no effective substitute, because ALL pesticides are more and more and more and more closely regulated and then later banned - not because of SCIENCE - but because of pseudoscience, the bastard child of politics and science, which borrows heavily from late '70's, early '80's 'wisdom'.

[S.O.S121.500]

DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710158/posts

[technochick99]

The problem in this logic is that she has already made that choice, and determined the pig is more valuable than her mother. If they are truly equal you'd flip a coin or something.

Well, no. I think her logic is fine. She's saying she wouldn't kill one living "being" to save another.

That said, she's an idiot.

[Eva]

If you had been reading some of the web sites for the communist anti war groups, you would know that the Greens are part and parcel of the same group. Environmentalism is not the true agenda of these people it is a tool, a kind of political thought control or brainwashing.

[technochick99]

I have heard that even now, DDT is still found in the milk of lactating mothers in this country. How to counter that statement?

[m1911]

If you hear it from someone, ask for a source. If you get it, let us know.

[technochick99]

I know I've read it in various health magazines. They seem to buy the argument without skepticism.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Hey Joe,
Please ping me when you see items like this. You know this is the issue I think isn't discussed -- and condemned -- enough.

C_O: Perhaps your aid at number 16.

[JoJo Gunn]

Though not specifically mentioned, there's also this about the Green Nazis:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/745309/posts

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

In a 1997 article in the Atlantic Monthly (not exactly a rightwing periodical!) about a Nobel laureate agronomist widely known as "the father of the Green Revolution," I was angered to read about how the Enviros of the US and Europe have worked hard to suppress research aimed at developing high yield crops, because of the hundreds of millions (some estimate one billion) lives saved by these crops in the last 40 years. They would prefer to see a billion people die slow agonizing deaths by starvation, because any reduction in the human population - no matter how it is accomplished - is seen as a net plus for the earth. Here's one quote from the article :

Another reason is that Borlaug's mission -- to cause the environment to produce significantly more food -- has come to be seen, at least by some securely affluent commentators, as perhaps better left undone. More food sustains human population growth, which they see as antithetical to the natural world.

They successfully pressured the major foundations who originally funded his work in the early days (Rockefeller, Ford, etc.) to stop funding him. Makes your blood boil!!

[sharktrager]

Ah, but she is killing one to save another. She is killing her parent to save the pig.

Keep in mind, she is making a decision, in this example, for someone else.

[P.O.E.]

Like modern-day Albigensians, it seems the Greens perceive man as an evil to be done away with here on earth. Of course this fits in perfectly with the totalitarian modus operandi. For example, it provides cover to rail against and eliminate political enemies such as by the constant cries of "the sky is falling and it's all your fault".

[Carry_Okie]

Not humans. It's toxic to some species of birds. When the banning campaign was ongoing, it was said to be toxic to all species and to humans. Later, it turned out that the effect on humans is negligable, but birds ARE still affected.

Oh they're affected all righty, but not the way you think. DDT kills parasites (such as lice) that are a threat to birds. The parasites spread disease and induce pneumonia.

Here are Audubon society bird counts before and after the mass production and use of huge amounts of DDT.

Audubon Society
Christmas Bird Count Data
1941 (2,331 Observers)
vs. 1960 (8,928 Observers)
Species	Count			Count/Observer		Ratio/Observer
	1941	1960		1941	1960		1960/1941
Eagle	197	891		0.08	0.10		1.18
Gull	124,470	635,642		53.40	71.20		1.33
Raven	667	2,669		0.29	0.30		1.04
Crow	185,519	250,307		79.59	28.04		0.35
Quail	2,060	10,276		0.88	1.15		1.30
Pheasant	6,839	19,731		2.93	2.21		0.75
Mounring Dove	7,411	72,958		3.18	8.17		2.57
Swallow	14,347	242,303		6.15	27.14		4.41
Grebe	2,501	27,826		1.07	3.12		2.90
Pelican	4,450	10,562		1.91	1.18		0.62
Cormorant	3,246	27,162		1.39	3.04		2.18
Heron	2,254	16,253		0.97	1.82		1.88
Egret	1,469	16,800		0.63	1.88		2.99
Swan	18,554	33,994		7.96	3.81		0.48
Goose	182,820	696,777		78.43	78.04		1.00
Ducks	2,137,093	2,739,517		916.81	306.85		0.33
Balckbird	137,502	20,552,375		58.99	2,302.01		39.02
Grackle	24,937	12,570,458		10.70	1,407.98		131.61
Cowbird	40,019	3,286,314		17.17	368.09		21.44
Chickadee	21,330	55,906		9.15	6.26		0.68
Titmouse	5,038	18,268		2.16	2.05		0.95
Nuthatch	4,214	13,439		1.81	1.51		0.83
Robin	19,616	928,639		8.42	104.01		12.36
English Sparrow	53,335	358,769		22.88	40.18		1.76
Bluebird	3,742	6,903		1.61	0.77		0.48
Starling	211,836	8,673,095		90.88	971.45		10.69
Sources:	42nd Christmas Bird Count			Audubon Magazine, 1942
	61st Christmas Bird Count			Audubon Field Notes, 15, 1961

Thanks to Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University, for providing this information.

The problem is that when there is so much money to be made controlling access to resources, those with the money to invest will use the power to regulate the economy in the name of protecting the environment to make a very tidy profit. As long as the opinion of a democratic majority is capable of controlling the use of private property, those investors will invest heavily in controlling that public opinion. They will find and publicize purveyors of opinion friendly to their interests. Enter Rachel Carlson, whose lies were used to foist the largest single act of mass murder in the twentieth century.

Wouldn't you prefer an honest way to manage the environment?

[Carry_Okie]

Somebody educate me.

OK.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

>>" have you ever seen a pig raise its offpsring to act like that?"

Chelsea?