War, Death, and Destruction
The Secondary Consequences of Environmentalism
have consequences. Evil ideas can lead to catastrophe.
Although ideas themselves cannot be seen, the results of
ideas can. Sometimes it is difficult to make the connection
between cause and affect. However, it is my intent here
to show that environmentalism was a key factor that lead
to the attacks on the World Trade Center, the attack on
The Pentagon, and the tragic airplane crash in Pennsylvania.
In turn, environmentalism is leading to another war (as
a response to terrorism) and, therefore, will be a proximate
cause of two wars within the span of one decade (the previous
one was the Persian Gulf War). Moreover, I intend to show
that environmentalists see no difference between the deaths
of thousands of human beings and the deaths of an equal
amount of chickens killed by an arsonist's fire at a chicken
farm (this is called biocentrism). Unquestionably, what
I have stated sounds extreme. Well, how about this: it
is my intention to demonstrate that environmentalism is
inextricably linked to two of the most evil movements of
all time, Nazism and Communism. The link is biocentrism
and the horrible mutations (of biocentrism) that emerge
when this awful concept is politicized. The political mutations
of biocentrism lead to an utter disregard for the sanctity
of human life. Once you finish reading this article, I
hope you will think of the pernicious environmental movement
every time you think of the unspeakable terrorist acts
committed on September 11, 2001; when you think of those
human beings that died in the Persian Gulf War, and those
who are about to die in America's impending war. Environmentalists
have blood on their hands, and unfortunately more is to
come. This green socialist movement (environmentalism)
must be stopped.
the years, I have had the great fortune of reading wonderful
books and articles. Every once in awhile, I am fortunate
enough to remember bits and pieces of separate books and
articles; and somehow pull these pieces together to help
explain current events. With this in mind, I have pulled
together the works of Dr. Alston Chase, Dr. Friedrich A.
Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. George
Reisman, and Stephane Courtois, et al. Much of this article
consists of lengthy quotes from each author. My work is
to simply "connect the dots" in order to show
you how environmentalism was a proximate cause in the deaths
of thousands of innocent people going about their daily
business at the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and in
each airplane (and how they are going to be responsible
for war itself).
order to understand how evil the environmental (green)
movement is, it is important to understand the movement's
roots and radical ideology. Speaking of radical, I cannot
emphasize enough the importance of biocentrism to the environmental
movement. In simple terms, biocentrism asserts that all
life forms are equally important. Therefore, it follows
that a boy, is a dog, is a pig, is a rat, is a chicken.
Such a radical egalitarian assertion (when politicized)
provides the key as to how bizarre ideology and human behavior
can be spawned from such a horrifying concept. Just imagine
if a country's leaders were biocentrists. Of course the
environmental wacko, Al Gore, comes to mind (Ralph Nader
too). What you are about to read is going to disturb you.
In fact, you are about to learn that Nazism (National Socialism)
was an environmental movement.
following excerpt comes from Dr. Alston Chase's fabulous
a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny
of Ecology. Dr. Chase (a retired philosophy professor)
earned his Ph.D., in philosophy, from Princeton University.
This information can be found in chapter 10 (titled "The
Birth of Biocentrism"). Indeed, you are about to see
what it is like for a country to be lead by environmentalists/biocentrists.
This is information environmentalists would prefer you
not to know about Nazism and Adolf Hitler himself. It is
extraordinarily embarrassing to the Green movement.
many recent arrivals to the Golden State, Bill Devall was
on a spiritual journey but had not yet reached his destination.
Having cast off old beliefs, he needed a new philosophy.
And this day he found what he was searching for, an idea
so mind blowing it would change the world!
graduating from the University of Kansas and enrolling
in the Ph.D. program at the University of Oregon, Devall
joined the faculty at Humboldt State at Arcata, California,
in 1968, while completing his dissertation on the governance
of the Sierra Club. But his sociologist colleagues didn't
give a fig for the environment. So he designed a specialty
form himself, calling it political ecology.
he arrived, Devall found the campus in turmoil over Redwoods
National Park. The Sierra Club, students felt, had caved
in to political pressure, accepting a park that was too
small. "That experience taught me," Devall said, "that
conventional politics of give and take practiced by Sierra
was self-defeating. The club didn't listen to the grassroots.
The drama of David Brower's firing happened before my eyes.
It seemed to symbolize the contrast between establishment
environmentalism and the no-compromise approach."
Devall sought an alternative ideology, an intellectual
compass that would give direction to his dissatisfaction.
Then, as he was walking through the college library one
day in 1975, he recalled, "this article sort of fell
into my lap." The article, from the obscure Norwegian
journal Inquiry, was the translation of a 1973 address
delivered by a Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, at the
Third World Future Research Conference in Budapest a year
earlier. The paper was titled "The Shallow and the
Deep: Long-Range Ecology Movements."
were, Naess said, two kinds of environmentalism. Shallow
environmentalism was the parochial movement practiced by
mainstream conservationist groups. Single issue-oriented,
it pursued politics as usual, placed man at the center
of the universe, and aimed at protecting "the health
and affluence of people in developed countries."
ecology, by contrast, proposed a basic realignment of the
relations between people and nature. Combining ecology
and philosophy into what Naess called "ecosophy" the "philosophy
of ecological harmony or equilibrium" it applied
ecology to all problems. Based on the insight that everything
is interdependent, it sought to sustain balance in ecosystems,
since these, and not their individual members, are the
fundamental units of nature. This aim in turn demanded
what Naess called "biospherical egalitarianism...the
equal right (of all things) to live and blossom." Since
living creatures depend on one another, all life is equally
important. All things are created equal!
deep ecology, ecosystem science had come home to roost.
The concept of the organic community, which originated
centuries ago as philosophic monism, and which was inserted
into biology by Haeckel, Clements, Tansley, and the Odums,
had become a philosophic doctrine once again. A new generation,
borrowing the ecosystem metaphor from science, would put
it to political uses no one anticipated.
was a sledgehammer of an idea with which to change the
world. For Devall, things suddenly fell into place. He
would be the apostle of deep ecology! The next year he
introduced the idea to America in a half-page article written
for the tiny journal Econews, then followed it with
a piece for the Humboldt Journal of Social Relations called "Streams
of Environmentalism: Reform vs. Deep Ecology." Soon
he teamed with the philosopher George Sessions of Sierra
College, near Sacramento, churning out tracts to sell the
idea. And it spread like lightning...
appealing to nature, Devall evinced a classical response
in his search for political values. Just as Plato appealed
to nature to justify benevolent despotism, Aristotle to
champion Athenian democracy, Hobbes to argue for absolute
monarch, and Locke to defend liberalism, so Devall invoked
nature to justify the principle of biocentric equality. Yet,
however attractive, his idea was no less arbitrary than
those advocated by earlier political philosophers.
Nature was not necessarily "egalitarian." It
could just as easily be characterized as a hierarchy, as
Aldo Leopold described it in Sand County Almanac,
as a "biotic pyramid." Though all things are
mutually dependent, they are also predatory. Wolves eat
elk, which consume grass. A hierarchical metaphor of nature
seemed more likely to justify human domination.
notion of the individual as a subordinate member of an
indivisible organic community of interdependent parts the
idea on which biospherical egalitarianism rested was
not so much an insight of empirical biology as of German
metaphysics. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, teaching at
the University of Berlin in the early nineteenth century,
developed the doctrine to justify the restoration of the
Prussian monarchy following the Napoleonic wars. Known
as the "organic theory of the state," Hegel's
philosophy asserted that the Prussians were connected to
one another by tradition, language, and folklore. This
was the national spirit of which the state was a manifestation.
was both a monist and a holist, who, like Devall, applied
his ideas to politics. Everything in the universe, Hegel
believed, is composed of spiritual substance; only complex
wholes, and not their parts, have independent reality. Likewise,
people are merely elements in a larger system which is
the state, and have no status apart from the
state. The "highest duty" of the individual,
Hegel wrote, "is to be a member of the state."
the philosopher Walter Stace explains, for Hegel "the
state is a true individual. It is a person, an organism
(in which) the life of the whole appears in all the parts.
This means that the true life of the parts, i.e., the individuals,
is found in and is identical with the life of the whole,
the state." Hence, Hegel opposed liberalism and
individualism. "Liberalism sets up, in opposition
to (Prussian holism), the atomistic principle which insists
upon the sway of individual wills." This "makes
it impossible to firmly establish any political organization."
be sure, by early nineteenth-century standards Hegel was
a highly principled, ethical thinker. His was intended
as a moral holism, and the Prussian state he advocated
was not totalitarian but benevolent. Nevertheless, his
supposition that individuals are subordinate to higher
values inspired both fascism (an amoral spiritual
monism) and communism (a materialistic monism).
Fascist conception," wrote Mussolini, "is for
the individual insofar as he coincides with the State...Fascism
reaffirms the state as the true reality of the individual." To
liberals, wrote Mussolini's minister of justice, Alfredo
Rocco, in 1925, echoing Hegel,
merely a sum total of individuals, a plurality which breaks
up into single components...This doctrine which I call atomistic...reveals
from under a concealing cloak a strongly materialistic
nature...The true antithesis (of liberalism)...is to be found
in the doctrine of Fascism...Each society...exists in the unity
of both its biological and its social contents...Instead
of the liberal-democratic formula, "society for the
individual," we have "individuals for society."
wrote Karl Marx's collaborator, Friedrich Engels, "was
the most encyclopedic mind of his time." Indeed, Hegel's
philosophy complex, obscure, thorough, fascinating,
and subtle dominated European politics and scholarship
for nearly a century. His monism was a fecund idea with
prolific implications which opened up entirely new horizons
for scholarship. Just one of his seminal insights that
things can be understood only within a larger context not
only prompted Marx to argue that individuals are subordinate
to the social class to which they belong, but also gave
birth to the science of sociology (i.e., studying people
within the greater social setting).
1866 Ernst Haeckel, embracing holism and monism, conceived
the idea of studying things within the context of their
environment, which at first he believed was entirely material
but later apparently came to see as infused with spirit.
Individuals, Haeckel argued, following Hegel, do not have
a separate existence; they are merely parts of the larger
wholes the tribe, the nation, the environment.
was not merely a scientist. An ardent German nationalist,
he was also a Darwinian and like several Save the
Redwoods League founders a believer in Eugenics.
But, unlike the American conservationists, he promoted
racism as a social policy, actually advocating preservation
of the biological purity of the German people through euthanasia
and careful breeding. As the historian Daniel Gasman has
noted: "Disaster was on the horizon, he (Haeckel)
preached, unless Germany acted radically and forcefully
to bring itself into harmony with the laws of biology...What
was needed for Germany...was a far reaching cultural and
not a social revolution...The monists were, therefore, true
practitioners of conservative religion."
was both a source of truth and a value worthy of worship.
But the German people were cut off from nature. To reestablish
this connection, said Haeckel, the state must mimic the
organic structure of the environment. This reasoning led
Haeckel to reject humanism and to found a political movement,
the Monist League, to promote his ideology. If living
things are interconnected parts of organic nature, the
Monists reasoned, then differences between humans and other
creatures are matters of degree, not kind. And
since people derived their identity through their race whose
interests were represented by the state then the
state was the highest authority, and liberal concepts of
freedom and justice were invalid. Liberalism was an enemy
of the state, and of race.
short, ecology, like Darwinism, was adapted for political
uses almost from the start. Its prominence by the 1920s
prompts the Oxford historian Anna Bramwell to ask if it
should be called "a German disease." Haeckel's
ideas that humans should be close to nature and that his
countrymen must revive "the German spirit" helped
to fuel the "Volkish" movement an effort
to reestablish people's connection with nature by reviving
early Celtic rural conditions. Nationalists and agrarians
believed, according to Bramwell, that "Germans had
been victims of forcible denaturalization from the days
of the Roman Empire. The alien Christian Judaic civilization
had blocked man off from the natural world, and all the
anti-life manifestations of urban living stemmed from this
they believe that preserving society required the reestablishment
of connections with nature by reviving the primitive agrarian
culture, or Volk, and ridding Germany of everything and
everybody that was unnatural. Society must promote
biological fitness through "racial hygiene" and
desire to subordinate people to organic nature led directly
to racism. "The 'scientific' element of racialism
can be traced back to Haeckel," writes the philosopher
Karl Popper. Haeckel, as Robert Jay Lifton observes, in
part quoting the historian George L. Mosse, "a towering
figure in German biology and an early Darwinian, was also
a racist, a believer in a mystical Volk, and a strong
advocate of eugenics who 'can be claimed to be a direct
ancestor' of the Nazi 'euthanasia' project." Indeed,
as Daniel Gasman calls "Germany's major prophet of
political biology," someone who contributed significantly
to the development of Nazi ideology: "The writings
of Haeckel and the ideas of his followers...were proto-Nazi
in character, and (as) one of the most powerful forces
in the nineteenth and twentieth-century German intellectual
history, may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine
of National Socialism."
do not need to strain at gnats to show there was a strain
of ecological ideas among Nazis: the evidence is ample," writes
Bramwell. As the historian Robert A. Pois observes, National
Socialism was "a religion of nature," which
called for the establishment of a utopian community, the Volksgemeinschaft,
rooted in a perceived natural order." Throughout Hitler's
political career, writes Pois, "he would continually
emphasize the importance of recognizing nature's power
over man. He scoffed at the notion of humans ever having
the ability to 'control' or 'rule over' nature...Hitler
sounded remarkably like contemporary environmentalists who,
with ample reason, proclaim that a sharp-tempered Mother
Nature... will eventually avenge herself upon those who,
at least since the onset of industrialization, have tried
her patience." He believed in "the sanctity of
Nazism was based largely on biological theory. As Hitler's
confidant Rudolph Hess insisted, the movement was nothing
more than "applied biology" for restoring the "vitality
of the German race." It sought "biological renewal" through
building, said Heinrich Himmler's legal aide, Werner Best,
an "organically indivisible national community." And
those who opposed these goals merely revealed themselves
to be "the symptom of an illness which threatens the
healthy unity of the...national organism."
man's alienation from nature, many Nazi thinkers among
whom can be counted the philosopher Martin Heidegger opposed
what they saw as unnatural and decadent modern living.
Heidegger complained that "technological domination
spreads itself over the earth ever more quickly, ruthlessly,
and completely...The humanness of man and the thingness of
things dissolve into the calculated market value of a market
which...spans the earth." Likewise, the Nazis blamed
capitalists for driving farmers off the land and into towns
in an effort to obtain cheap labor, thus undermining rural
culture and promoting factory farms that used poisonous
synthetic chemicals. Reestablishing the connection with
nature, they believed, required crushing unnatural, non-German
values. Private property had to be abolished, since it
promoted commercialism, consumerism, and urbanization. Forests
and wildlife, symbolizing Germany's pre-Roman past, had
to be preserved.
soon after seizing power in 1933, the Third Reich launched
a ruralization program to create a new more, primitive
Germany. Subdivisions and private property were declared
illegal. Vivisection was banned, and Hitler's Germany
became the first European country to establish nature preserves. In
1940 hedgerow and copse protection ordinances were passed "to
protect the habitat of wildlife."
training," reports Bramwell, "included a
respect for animal life of near Buddhist proportions." Meanwhile,
the Nazi regime embraced organic agriculture. Hess
promoted experimentation in "bio-dynamic farming," including
tests that featured feeding babies organically grown
food. Himmler, who, like Hitler, was a vegetarian, created
several organic farms, including one at Dachau which
produced herbs for SS medicines. His staff, reports
Bramwell, "sent him papers on B vitamin shortages
as a cause of matriarchal societies," and other "studies
were made on the degenerative effect of artificial
there you have it, there has been a country lead by biocentrists
(Nazi Germany). In this case, the biocentrists were also
racists. However, since biocentrism is inherently warped,
it should not be surprising that Hitler was a vegetarian;
which reflected his reverence for "helpless" animals
above all non-Aryan human beings. Indeed, biocentrism can
emerge in unpredictable forms. Clearly, there is a danger
in any movement that accepts the radically egalitarian
concept that all living beings are equal in importance.
Once this shocking premise is adopted, political mutations
such as National Socialism (Nazism) are bound to emerge.
In the case of Nazis, leaders such as Hitler, Himmler,
and Hess can make what appears to be a logical argument
for genocide in the context of biocentrism. Non-Aryans
were the enemy and were systematically exterminated. This
genocidal project was necessary (in the Nazi ideal) to "purify" Germany
so that it may be reunified, as a whole, with nature. Environmentalism
and Nazism (National Socialism) are forever joined at the
the years, I have heard so many people state that Nazism
(National Socialism) and Communism are completely polar
opposites. If you were to think of a continuum (as represented
by a line) think of where you would place Nazism and Communism
on this line. Let's start this line with totalitarianism
as the beginning point on the far left and then moving
to the right ending at the point of liberty (i.e. in the
sense of classical liberalism). Where would you place communism
and Nazism on this continuum? I'll bet you would place
these two despotic forms of government right next to, or
on top of, the point representing totalitarianism. Moreover,
the United States' republican form of government would
be much further to the right but not quite reaching the
classical liberal point on the continuum. If the Green
Party successfully captured the White House, where do you
think we would move on this continuum? You got it, dangerously
leftwards toward Nazism and communism.
the previous paragraph in mind, let's see what Stephan
Courtois, et al had to say about Nazism and communism in The
Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.
I promise you, it will be just as alarming as National
Socialism (Nazism) and it will make you all the more alarmed
before delving into this outstanding book, it is necessary
to define "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" (two
Marxist terms). The bourgeoisie (via Marxist doctrine)
are equated to a self-employed person, a shopkeeper, a
businessman, or a person whose beliefs, attitudes, and
practices are considered to be middle-class. In other words,
everyone slaughtered in the terrorist attacks on September
11, 2001. The proletariat (who Marx favored) are typically
the lowest class of citizens, who have no property. This
is who today's environmentalists identify with (as morally
superior) as they are not the misguided middle-class consumers
(the enemy) so reviled for their over-consumption (i.e.
SUVs, houses [oh so full of those "murdered" trees],
electronic gizmos, etc.). So now let's get to The
Black Book of Communism.
was the enemy to be defined? Politics was reduced to a
civil war in which two opposing forces, the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie, were in conflict, and the former had
to exterminate the latter by any means necessary. The enemy
was no longer the ancien regime, the aristocrats,
the bourgeoisie, and the military officers, but anyone
opposed to Bolshevik policy. Those who expressed opposition
were immediately designated "bourgeois" and treated
accordingly. To the Bolshevik mind, an "enemy" was
anyone, regardless of social category, who presented an
obstacle to the Bolshevik's absolute power. This phenomenon
appeared immediately, even earlier than terror, in the
electoral assemblies of the Soviets. Kautsky foresaw this
development when he wrote in 1918 that the only people
allowed to elect deputies to the Soviets were to be those
procure their sustenance by useful or productive work." What
is "useful and productive work"? This is a very
elastic term. No less elastic is the definition of those
who are excluded from the franchise. They include any who
employs wage laborers for profit...One sees how little it
takes, according to the Constitution of the Soviet Republic,
to be labeled a capitalist, and to lose the vote. The elasticity
of definition of the franchise, which opens the door to
the greatest arbitrariness, is due to the subject of this
definition, and not to its framers. A juridical definition
of the proletariat that is distinct and precise is impossible
word "proletarian" played the same role here
that the term "patriot" had for Robespierre. "Enemy" was
also a totally elastic category that expanded or contracted
to meet the political needs of the moment, becoming a key
element in Communist thought and practice. As Tzvetan Todorov
enemy is the great justification for terror, and the totalitarian
state needs enemies to survive. If it lacks them, it invents
them. Once they have been identified, they are treated
without mercy...Being an enemy is a hereditary stain that
cannot be removed...As has often been pointed out,
Jews are persecuted not for what they have done but for
what they are, and Communism is no different. It
demands the repression (or in moments of crisis, the elimination)
of the bourgeoisie as a class. Belonging to the class is
enough: there is no need actually to have done anything
essential question remains: Why should the enemy be exterminated?
The traditional role of repression, in Foucault's terminology,
is to "discipline and punish." Was the time of
discipline and punishment over? Had class enemies become "unredeemable"?
Solzhenitsyn provides one response by showing that in the
Gulag common criminals were systematically treated better
than political prisoners. This was the case not solely
for practical reasons that they helped run the camps but
also for theoretical reasons. One of the aims of the Soviet
regime was to build new men, and doing this implied reeducation
of the most hardened criminals. It was also a key propaganda
issue in the Soviet Union under Stalin, as well as in China
under Mao and in Cuba under Castro.
why should the enemy be killed? The identification of enemies
has always played an important role in politics. Even the
gospel says: "He who is not with me is against me." What
was new was Lenin's insistence not only that those not
with him were against him, but also those who were against
him were to die. Furthermore, he extended this principle
outside the domain of politics into the wider sphere of
society as a whole.
involves a double mutation. The adversary is first labeled
an enemy, and then declared a criminal, which leads to
his exclusion from society. Exclusion very quickly turns
into extermination. The friend/foe dialectic no longer
suffices to solve the fundamental problem of totalitarianism: the
search for a reunified humanity that is purified and no
longer antagonistic, conducted through messianic dimension
of the Marxist project to reunify humanity via the proletariat.
The ideal is to prop up a forcible unification of
the Party, of society, of the entire empire and
to weed out anyone who fails to fit into the new world.
After a relatively short period, society passes from the
logic of political struggle to the process of exclusion,
then to the ideology of elimination, and finally to the
extermination of impure elements. At the end of the line,
there are crimes against humanity.
a quick aside: how does communism really differ from Nazism?
Ultimately, I do not see a difference. The purification
process is really quite arbitrary and is wholly linked
to those in power. Those in power will decide what category
of people will be exterminated in the name of purification.
Undoubtedly there will be a scientific basis for committing
atrocities. Such "science" will actually be scientism:
which is an exaggerated trust in the methods of natural
science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy,
the social sciences, and the humanities). For adherents
to Austrian economics, we see what the misapplication of
mathematics (i.e. mimicking physics) has done to mainstream
economics. Now back to the book.
leaders of totalitarian regimes saw themselves as the moral
guardians of society and were proud of their right to send
anyone they chose to his death. The fundamental justification
was always the same: necessity with a scientific basis.
Tzvetan Todorov, reflecting on the origins of totalitarianism,
writes: "It was scientism and not humanism that helped
establish the ideological bases of totalitarianism...The
relation between scientism and totalitarianism is not limited
to the justification of acts through so-called scientific
necessity (biological or historical): one must already
be a practitioner of scientism, even if it is 'wild' scientism,
to believe in the perfect transparency of society and thus
in the possibility of transforming society by revolutionary
means to conform with an ideal."
provided a clear illustration of this "scientific" approach
in 1919. In his Defense of Terrorism he claimed: "The
violent revolution has become a necessity because the imminent
requirements of history are unable to find a road through
the apparatus of parliamentary democracy." In support
of this claim he advanced "proofs":
proletariat is the historically rising class...The bourgeoisie
(by contract) is a falling class. It no longer plays an
essential part in production and by its imperialist methods
of appropriation is destroying the economic structure of
the world and human culture generally. Nevertheless, the
historical tenacity of the bourgeoisie is colossal. It
holds to power, and does not wish to abandon it. It thereby
threatens to drag after it the abyss the whole of society.
We are forced to tear off this class and chop it away.
The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite
being doomed to destruction, does not wish to perish.
down on page 749 of this book, the authors state:
people to death required a certain amount of study. Relatively
few people actively desire the death of their fellow human
beings, so a method of facilitating this had to be found.
The most effective means was the denial of the victim's
humanity through a process of dehumanization. As Alain
Brossat notes: "The barbarian ritual of purge,
and the idea of the extermination machine in top gear are
closely linked in the discourse and practice of persecution
to the animalization of the Other, to the reduction of
real or imaginary enemies to a zoological state."
were many examples of this process. During the great trials
in Moscow, the procurator Andrei Vyshinsky, who was an
intellectual with a traditional classical training, threw
himself into a veritable frenzy of animalization:
these rabid dogs! Death to this gang who hide their ferocious
teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with the
vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips,
putrefying the great ideals of Marxism! Let's put these
liars out of harm's way, these miserable pygmies who dance
around rotting carcasses! Down with these abject animals!
Let's put and end once and for all to these miserable hybrids
of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let their horrible
squeals finally come to an end! Let's exterminate the mad
dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower
of our new Soviet nation! Let's push the bestial hatred
they bear our leaders back down their own throats!
this starting to sound a bit biocentric to you? It sure
does to me. Let's continue with more about the communist
mutation of biocentrism.
draws the following conclusions from this process of animalization:
always, the poets and butchers of totalitarianism reveal
themselves first of all by the vocabulary they use. The "liquidation" of
the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the "treatment" carried
out by the Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of
an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was
in full view on the Soviet stage. The value of human life
collapsed, and thinking in categories ("enemies of
the people," "traitors," "untrustworthy
elements," etc.) replaced ethical thought...In the discourse
and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization
of the Other, which could not be dissociated from the obsession
with the cleanliness and contagion, was closely linked
to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably
hierarchical racial terms of "subhumans" and "supermen"...but
in Moscow in 1937, the discourse about race and the totalitarian
measures associated with it were quite different. What
mattered instead was the total animalization of the Other,
so that a policy under which anything was possible could
come into practice.
the communist leaders (of the Soviet Union) arrived at
their own political derivative of biocentrism. Just as
Bill Devall used biocentrism as a political "sledgehammer" to
save the wilderness (whatever that may be), Soviet leaders
used a form of biocentrism to achieve the political goal
of exterminating the bourgeoisie. Thus, the Soviet's may
as well have said, a bourgeois (i.e. a middle-class person),
is a dog, is a pig, is a snake, is a corpse. With this
being said, let's get back to The Black Book of Communism.
thing is certain: Crimes against humanity are the product
of an ideology that reduces people not to a universal but
to a particular condition, be it biological, racial, or
sociohistorical. By means of propaganda, the Communists
succeeded in making people believe that their conduct had
universal implications, relevant to humanity as a whole.
Critics have often tried to make a distinction between
Nazism and Communism by arguing that the Nazi project had
a particular aim, which was nationalist and racist in extreme,
whereas Lenin's project was universal. This is entirely
wrong. In both theory and practice, Lenin and his
successors excluded from humanity all capitalists, the
bourgeoisie, counterrevolutionaries, and others, turning
them into absolute enemies in their sociological and political
discourse. Kautsky noted as early as 1918 that these terms
were entirely elastic, allowing those in power to exclude
whomever they wanted from humanity whenever they so wished.
These were the terms that led directly to crimes against
this point, I feel that you should be convinced that environmentalism
is communism with a "green" stripe and, via biocentrism,
is no different than Nazism. But I want to use my version
of a sledgehammer. This sledgehammer comes in the form
of Dr. George Reisman's magnum opus Capitalism. In
this book he does not mince words about the environmental
green movement is the old red movement, deprived of its
pretensions to rationality and seeking to evade its guilt
by turning on reason itself, as though reason were responsible
for the failure of socialism and for all horrors that have
been committed as a result of socialism. The green movement,
in other words, is the red movement stripped of the veneer
of reason and science rather than take the trouble to learn
what reason and science actually are. The green movement
is the red movement no longer in its boisterous, arrogant
youth, but its demented old age.
only difference I can see between the green movement of
the environmentalists and the old red movement of the Communists
and socialists is the superficial one of the specific reasons
for which they want to violate individual liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. The Reds claimed that the individual
could not be left free because the result would be such
things as "exploitation," "monopoly," and
depressions. The Greens claim that the individual cannot
be left free because the result will be such things as
the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global
warming. Both claim that centralized government control
over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it
for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The
Greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental
damage and for the actual, admitted purpose of inflicting
human misery and death (which was also the actual, but
unadmitted purpose for which the Reds wanted it). Both
the Reds and the Greens want someone to suffer and die;
the one, the capitalists and the rich, for the alleged
sake of the wage earners and the poor; the other, a major
portion of mankind, for the alleged sake of lower animals
and inanimate nature.
it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds,
or of those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning
from Marxism and becoming Greens of the ecology movement.
It is the same fundamental philosophy in a different guise,
ready as ever to wage war on the freedom and well-being
of the individual. In seeking to destroy capitalism and
industrial civilization, both movements provide ample potential
opportunity for those depraved individuals who would rather
kill than live, who would rather inflict pain and death
than experience pleasure, whose pleasure comes from the
infliction of pain and death.
the excerpts you have read from In a Dark Wood, The
Black Book of Communism, and Capitalism, it
should be clear that environmentalists are no different
from Nazis and communists. Their objectives are evil and
the consequences of their actions will lead to evil. On
September 11, 2001, you witnessed evil when the terrorists
attacked innocent human beings and killed thousands of
them. You are about to witness the evils of war once again
thanks to environmentalists. The evil policies of environmentalists
play a substantial role in why these evil attacks occurred
in the first place.
it may appear wildly extreme to assert that the Green movement
is significantly responsible for these despicable acts
of mass murder. This is why it is important to bring the
best economics journalist of the 20th century
(Henry Hazlitt) into the picture. In his superb book Economics
in One Lesson, Mr. Hazlitt brings up the concept
of "secondary consequences". Detecting secondary
consequences may be difficult but can be fleshed out through
careful examination. This is what he had to say:
every group has certain economic interests identical with
those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall
see, interests antagonistic to those of all groups. While
certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody,
other policies would benefit one group at the expense of
all other groups. The group that would benefit by such
policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue
for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best
buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting
its case. And it will finally either convince the general
public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear
thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.
addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there
is a second main factor that spawns economic fallacies
every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see
only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects
only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what
the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on
that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy
of overlooking secondary consequences.
thinking about environmentalism, one cannot help but to
think about this movement's attacks against man-made power.
Early on, coal-fire plants were vilified in the name of
acid rain. Nuclear power was demonized so thoroughly that
fear ran amok to the point that Americans were expecting
these plants to blow up and eviscerate mankind. Hydroelectric
dams are being attacked because they are affecting some
salmon runs, thus mother earth herself is being killed.
Now we have the frontal attack against the internal combustion
engine and the very oil needed to run them. This attack
has come in the form of dire warnings about global warming.
Naturally, the ultimate goal of the environmentalists is
to stop the industrial and personal use of oil so that
CO2 emissions don't cause the planet to bake to death.
use another sledgehammer, provided by Dr. Reisman, the
following information was garnered from his fantastic article "The
Toxicity of Environmentalism". In this article, Dr.
Reisman demonstrates how man-made power is essential to
an ever increasing quality of life and how, conversely,
the environmental movement (if it gets its way) will send
humanity back to abject poverty. To wit,
large numbers of otherwise good people have been enlisted
in the environmentalists' campaign to throttle the production
of energy. This is a campaign which, to the degree that
it succeeds, can only cause human deprivation and the substitution
of man's limited muscle power for the power of motors and
engines. It is actually a campaign which seeks nothing
less than the undoing of the Industrial Revolution,
and the return to the poverty, filth, and misery of earlier
essential feature of the Industrial Revolution is the use
of man-made power. To the relatively feeble muscles
of draft animals and the still more feeble muscles of human
beings, and to the relatively small power available from
nature in the form of wind and falling water, the Industrial
Revolution added man-made power. It did so first in the
form of steam generated from the combustion of coal, and
later in the form of the internal combustion based on petroleum,
and electric power based on the burning of any fossil fuel
or on atomic energy.
man-made power is the essential basis of all the economic
improvements achieved over the last two hundred years.
Its application is what enables us human beings to accomplish
with our arms and hands the amazing productive results
we do accomplish. To the feeble powers of our arms and
hands is added the enormously greater power released by
these sources of energy. Energy use, the productivity
of labor, and the standard of living are inseparably connected,
with the two last entirely dependent on the first.
it is not surprising, for example, that the United States
enjoys the world's highest standard of living. This is
a direct result of the fact that the United States has
the world's highest energy consumption per capita. The
United States, more than any other country, is the country
where intelligent human beings have arranged motor-driven
machinery to accomplish results for them. All further substantial
increases in the productivity of labor and standard of
living, both here in the United States and across the world,
will be equally dependent on man-made power and the growing
consumption of energy makes it possible. Our ability to
accomplish more and more with the same limited muscular
powers of our limbs will depend entirely on our ability
to augment them further and further with the aid of still
more such energy.
total opposition to the Industrial Revolution and all the
marvelous results it has accomplished, the essential goal
of environmentalism is to block the increase in one source
of man-made power after another and ultimately to roll
back the production of man-made power to the point of virtual
nonexistence, thereby undoing the Industrial Revolution
and returning the world to the economic Dark Ages. There
is to be no atomic power. According to environmentalists,
it represents the death ray. There is to be now power based
on fossil fuels. According to environmentalists, it causes "pollution," and
now global warming, and must therefore be given up. There
is not even to be significant hydro-power. According to
environmentalists, the building of the necessary dams destroys
the intrinsically valuable wildlife habitat.
three things are to be permitted as sources of energy,
according to the environmentalists. Two of them, "solar
power" and power from windmills, are, as far as can
be seen, utterly impracticable as significant sources of
energy. If somehow, they became practicable, the environmentalists
would undoubtedly find grounds for attacking them. The
third allowable source of energy, "conservation," is
a contradiction in terms. "Conservation" is not a
source of energy. Its actual meaning is simply using less.
Conservation is a source of energy only at the price of
deprivation of energy use somewhere else.
environmentalists' campaign against energy calls to mind
the image of a boa constrictor entwining itself about
the body of its victim and slowly squeezing the life
out of him. There can be no other result for the economic
system of the industrialized world but enfeeblement and
ultimately death if its supplies of energy are progressively
I want to discuss nuclear energy. It is important to know
that over 70% of France's electricity is generated by atomic
power. The safety record of France's nuclear power grid
is simply excellent. Regarding Japan, the vast majority
of its electricity also comes from atomic power. After
all, this island nation has virtually no natural resources.
Turning to atomic power was logical. Just like France,
Japan's nuclear power grid has an excellent safety record.
Finally, my brother (Mark Englund) served six years in
the U.S. Navy and came to know how safe nuclear power is.
He spent two years in Navy "Nuke" School
and graduated at the top of every "Nuke" school
he attended. For the last four years of his naval service,
he served proudly as a nuclear power plant operator on
the USS Carl Vinson (which is powered by two nuclear power
plants). My brother is one of the most intelligent and
trustworthy people I know. When Mark states that American
nuclear power technology is the best and safest in the
world, I take him at his word. Environmentalists have demonized
a source of power that can help make our country significantly
less dependent on Middle Eastern oil (for which we have
already fought a war: the Persian Gulf War).
Dr. Reisman mentioned above, the latest bogeyman pulled
out of the environmental movement's bag of tricks is global
warming. If you watch the "news" as presented
by ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC, it is all but a foregone conclusion
that the U.S. must adopt the Kyoto Treaty unless we all
want to kill the earth with CO2 emissions coming from our
personal automobiles and from manufacturing plants (keep
in mind, as a side note, that atomic power does not produce
CO2). Environmentalists have so duped the left-wing minds
of most news reporters (which has lead to irresponsible
news reporting), that many Americans are now convinced
the United States is literally creating a hell on earth
(via global warming). As is typical of the Green movement,
they have chosen to ignore the scientific truth, which
means that they are terrorizing people with ghastly misinformation
portraying our impending doom. Ah, there is that word again:
terror. Indeed, environmentalists engage in psychological
terrorism and enjoy using the left-wing press as a tool
for terror (what a bunch of hacks).
what is the truth about global warming? Dr. Richard S.
Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, had much to
say about this in his June 11, 2001 article in OpinionJournal.com
(titled: "The Press Gets it Wrong: Our Report does
not Support the Kyoto Treaty"). Dr. Lindzen served
on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel on climate
change and co-authored its report. Here is what he stated
in his article:
week the National Academy of Sciences released a report
on climate change, prepared in response to a request from
the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit
endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell
was typical of the coverage when she declared that the
report represented "a unanimous decision that
global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to
man. There is no wiggle room."
one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can
state that this is simply untrue. For starters,
the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements
of a report, but rather that the report represent the span
of views. This full report did, making clear that there
is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term
climate trends and what causes them.
usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily
prepared summary rather than to the body of the report.
The summary began with a zinger that greenhouse
gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following
with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full
text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating
long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.
primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and
agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite
confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5
degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that
atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the
past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse
gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of
many, most important being water vapor and clouds).
I cannot stress this enough we are not in a position to
confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide
or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
That is to say, contrary to media impressions,
agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost
nothing relevant to policy discussions.
reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states,
the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two
centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging
from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle
Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years
ago, we were concerned about global cooling.
by reading this, it should be clear as to how utterly irresponsible
the news media is pertaining to such an important issue.
The news media has adopted a "Green Ethic" meaning
that science has been thrown into the dustbin for the sake
for some alleged "greater good". This is chilling.
Let's get back to Dr. Lindzen's article.
in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of
authority with which to bludgeon political opponents
and propagandize uninformed citizens. That is what
has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and
the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes
our ability to make rational decisions.
you beginning to see a common strand here? Let's go back
to what happened when the idea of biocentrism became politicized.
Horrifying mutations of biocentric thought justified the
deaths of millions at the hands of Nazis and communists.
Now we have the environmental movement trying to politicize
science itself. What you end up getting are weird forms
of scientism (as I mentioned earlier). Anything
can be done in the name of science (i.e. adopting the ridiculous
Kyoto Treaty) even though real science has been completely
discarded. So here you have it, the environmental movement
is hollowing out the very meaning of the word "science" and
changing it's meaning for the sake of meeting all of the
Green movement's goals. If Bill Clinton can ask the question "what
is the definition of 'is'," then most certainly the
Green movement can ask, "what is the definition of 'science'." It
will be what ever they want it to be. This kind of thinking,
once again, leads to such monstrous environmentalist credos
such as a boy, is a dog, is a pig, is a chicken. In turn,
I never grow tired of using the quote I found in F.A. Hayek's
book The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism.
This quote is a statement made by Confucius: "When
words lose their meaning people will lose their liberty." Every
time you watch the news, listen to a politician, and especially
when listening to an environmentalist, do not forget Confucius'
now I am sure that I have convinced you (at least those
of you who are not pantheists) how utterly destructive
the environmental movement is. Now it is time to connect
the final dot. This is the bloodiest dot of them all. Please
recall the Persian Gulf War. This was a war fought to keep
Middle Eastern oil flowing to the U.S. It was not a war
fought to restore a petty Kuwaiti monarch to his throne.
If there were no oil in the Middle East, we would have
not fought this war. Plain and simple. Yet what lead to
this war? Indeed, it can be traced back to the environmental
movement's boa constrictor-like death grip killing domestic
energy production and exploration.
think of it, domestically, we can't drill for new oil in
so many locations it is ludicrous (so this chokes off domestic
oil supply). We can't build new atomic power plants in
spite of the fact that countries such as Japan and France
serve as models of effectiveness and safety. Coal has been
vilified to the point that most new power plants are natural
gas fired in spite of the fact we have hundreds of years
worth of underground coal supplies within our own borders.
Insanely enough, we are now talking about breaching dams
without even thinking about what this would do to farmers,
ranchers, vineyard owners, and other businesses and their
employees (let alone how we will replace this loss of power).
So what is the result? Environmentalists have pushed us
to become even more dependent on foreign oil. And what
does this mean? It means that U.S. politicians get involved
in Middle Eastern politics to keep the oil flowing from
there to here. What happens when U.S. politicians get involved
in situations that go back to biblical times? Well, we
get involved in choosing sides and then we get involved
in wars. What happens to the side that loses? Well, sometimes
they strike back with terrorism as we saw on September
11, 2001. At this point I'll let Dr. Reisman connect the
final bloody dot regarding the evil Green movement and
how it brought terrorism to our own shores (this is an
excerpt from his 1990 article "The Toxicity of Environmentalism").
Clearly, this article was written as we were gearing up
for the Persian Gulf War.
American people must be made aware of what environmentalism
actually stands for and of what they stand to lose, and
have already lost, as the result of its growing influence.
They must be made aware of the environmental movement's
responsibility for the energy crisis and the accompanying
high price of oil and oil products, which is the result
of its systematic and highly successful campaign against
additional energy supplies. They must be made aware of
its consequent responsibility for the enrichment of Arab
sheiks at the expense of the impoverishment of hundreds
of millions of people around the world, including many
millions here in the United States. They must be made aware
of its responsibility for the vastly increased wealth,
power, and influence of terrorist governments in the Middle
East, stemming from the high price of oil it has caused,
and for the resulting need to fight a war in the region.
Hazlitt had it right. We often forget to look at secondary
consequences. The secondary consequences of environmentalism
are terrorism, war, death, and destruction. I don't think
you would have believed this unless I showed you that today's
Green movement's roots are squarely planted in the graves
of those people murdered by Nazis and communists. Moreover,
the Green movement's abuse of reason and language is just
as spectacular as was found in Nazi Germany, the Soviet
Union, and Mao's China. Never forget, that prisoners of
the aforementioned countries' concentration camps and gulags
were called "guests," "invitees," "students," and "experimental
subjects." The above shown quote, from Dr. Reisman,
needs to be etched in your mind forever simply because
environmentalism leads to war and, in turn, leads to retaliation
in the form of terrorist attacks. When American soldiers
start coming home in body bags (as another war is inevitable),
please think of the evil unleashed by the environmental
movement. Evil ideas have catastrophic secondary consequences.
me to close this article with a quote from Nobel laureate
Friedrich A. Hayek (as found in his wonderful book: The
Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism). If any
environmentalists are reading this article, it is especially
you that must take this statement to heart:
it or not, the current world population exists. Destroying
its material foundation in order to attain the 'ethical'
or instinctually gratifying improvements advocated by socialists
would be tantamount to condoning the death of billions
and the impoverishment of the rest.
the biocentric dominated, Green socialist "ethic" becomes
widely adopted, then all of us will watch horrified as
F.A Hayek's words come true. This would be the greatest
evil in the history of mankind. We must stop the environmental
movement and throw it into the dustbin of history.