Terrorism, War, Death, and Destruction The Secondary Consequences of Environmentalism

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Ideas
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.

Over
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).

In
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.

The
following excerpt comes from Dr. Alston Chase's fabulous book In
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.

Like
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!

After
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.

When
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."

So
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."

There
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."

Deep
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!

With
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.

This
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…

By
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.

The
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.

Hegel
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."

As
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."

To
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)
.

"The
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,

society…is
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."

Hegel,
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).

In
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.

Haeckel
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."

Nature
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
.

In
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 false ethic."

Hence,
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 euthanasia.

The
desire to subordinate people to organic nature led directly to
racism. "The u2018scientific' 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 u2018can be claimed to be a
direct ancestor' of the Nazi u2018euthanasia' 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."

"We
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 u2018control' or
u2018rule 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 nature."

Indeed,
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."

Decrying
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
.

Therefore,
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
."

"SS
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
fertilizer."

So
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 hip.

Over
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.

With
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 about environmentalism.

However,
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
.

How
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

"who
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 to formulate.

The
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 put it,

The
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 at all.

One
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.

But
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.

Terror
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.

As
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.

The
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 u2018wild' 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."

Trotsky
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":

The
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.

Further
down on page 749 of this book, the authors state:

Putting
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."

There
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:

Shoot
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!

Is
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.

Brossat
draws the following conclusions from this process of animalization:

As
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.

Indeed,
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.

One
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 humanity.

To
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:

…the
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.

The
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.

Thus,
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.

With
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.

Initially,
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:

While
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.

In
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.

In
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.

To
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,

Already
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 centuries.

The
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.

This
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.

Thus,
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.

In
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.

Only
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.

The
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 choked off
.

Briefly,
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).

As
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).

So
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:

Last
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."

As
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.

As
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.

Our
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
).

But – and
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.

One
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
.

Just
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.

Science,
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.

Are
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 u2018is'," then most certainly the Green movement can ask, "what
is the definition of u2018science'." 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'
wise words.

By
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.

Just
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.

The
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.

Henry
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.

Permit
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:

Like
it or not, the current world population exists. Destroying its
material foundation in order to attain the u2018ethical' or instinctually
gratifying improvements advocated by socialists would be tantamount
to condoning the death of billions and the impoverishment of the
rest.

If
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.

September
20, 2001

Eric
Englund [send him
mail
], who has an MBA from Boise State University, is a surety
bond underwriter in Bellevue, WA.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare