Socialism’s Trojan Horse
February 14, 2002, President Bush provided details for his plan
to combat global warming. The cornerstone of his plan is to promote
voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Naturally, environmentalists
were outraged that President Bush refused to adhere to the Kyoto
Treaty. It is President Bush’s contention that the Kyoto protocol
would cost nearly 5,000,000 jobs in the U.S. alone. Of course, environmentalists
claimed that there is a bigger picture here. All people, especially
those living in industrialized countries such as the U.S., must
sacrifice in order to win the universal struggle against global
warming. As we have seen over the past three decades, environmentalists
have succeeded in eroding property rights in the United States in
order to protect Mother Earth as they see fit (i.e. through the
Clean Water Act, through the Endangered Species Act, through ridiculous
wetlands legislation, through air quality laws, etc). Whether or
not President Bush understands this, the real struggle is between
liberty and totalitarianism. For if environmentalists succeed in
gradually taking away our private property rights, then a free market
and liberty cannot exist. Thus, it is my contention that the struggle
against environmentalism is actually a struggle for liberty (using
the classical liberal definition).
environmentalists will take exception to being called illiberal
socialists (but I repeat myself). Perhaps there are those of you
who are alarmed about global warming and sympathize with the environmental/green
movement. My response is for you to be careful with whom you associate;
which leads me to provide the following quote from Dr. George Reisman’s
magnum opus Capitalism:
should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of
those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism
and becoming the 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.
who are these former Reds who have converted to Green Socialism?
One excellent example is Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr. Gorbachev is now
the president of Green Cross International (a non-governmental environmental
organization). Among the many issues with which Green Cross International
has become involved, global warming is right at the top of its list.
Gosh, when Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher
became so chummy in the mid-1980s, I never once heard the Soviet
dictator express concern about the environment. Clearly, Mr. Gorbachev
has identified environmentalism as a Trojan horse capable of resurrecting
socialism on a global scale.
can I say that about Mikhail Gorbachev? Didn’t he bring glasnost
(freedom of speech) and perestroika (economic and political reforms)
to the Soviet Union? Indeed he did. Yet, these were means to his
end of trying to save Soviet Communism and, therefore, to save his
absolute and unspeakable power (that brought human misery to millions).
I am being too harsh on Mr. Gorbachev? To this I simply respond,
Marx (edited by Yuri N. Maltsev). Dr. Maltsev was a reformist
member of the Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
until he defected in 1989 (he now is an Associate Professor of economics
at Carthage College and is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises
Institute). In writing the introduction to this excellent book,
Dr. Maltsev states: "Gorbachev never learned economics in school.
In all my dealings with him I had never seen even a slight flash
of economic insight, or even the desire to learn more about economics.
He preferred to think like a communist: everything can be done by
issuing orders and demanding obedience, no matter how perverse,
contrary to human nature, and brutal they may be." This certainly
isn’t the image painted by the United States’ adoring press corps.
Gorbachev seems to be so nice.
this I respond with another excerpt (regarding the "nice"
Mr. Gorbachev) from Yuri Maltsev’s introduction in Requiem for
he did in the Baltic States – authorizing the Soviet military
to crack the skulls of innocent people in the Baltics – qualified
him to be included among history’s litany of murderous rulers,
but he was never included. Even while he was heralded in the
West as a great reformer, he was also running labor camps, committing
human rights violations, and sending people to prison for speech
crimes. As the Soviet Union came to an end, the public had been
reduced to a collective of hunter gatherers, barely living at
a subsistence level.
the former Soviet dictator has changed. Perhaps Mikhail Gorbachev
really does care about the environment and has no interest in resurrecting
socialism. To this, I simply refer one last time to Requiem for
Marx. Yuri Maltsev states: "Before the coup that removed
him from power, Gorbachev told a reporter, ‘I’ve been told more
than once that it is time to stop swearing allegiance to socialism.’
‘Why should I? Socialism is my deep conviction, and I will promote
it as long as I can talk and work’." Without a doubt, Mikhail
Gorbachev views environmentalism (with its anti-capitalist mentality)
as the movement most likely to succeed in defeating capitalism
there other examples of socialists that have come to embrace environmentalism?
Indeed, there is an environmentalist in power today. Libya’s dictator,
Muammar Al Qadhafi is an unabashed Green Socialist (I prefer to
call him a Green Communist). In fact, Qadhafi has written a book
that many Greens believe is the manifesto for Green Socialism. This
book is titled The Green Book (it is a three volume set).
I have read all three volumes and each one was quite disturbing.
In this book, he talks about capitalist exploitation, money, profits,
plants, animals, people, and families: all in a manner that ring
familiar with the dogma chanted by such groups as Greenpeace, PETA,
Earth First!, among others. The following points highlight several
of Colonel Qadhafi’s views as conveyed by The Green Book:
capitalism, wage workers are slaves.
- Land is
no one’s property. But everyone has the right to use it.
- The only
thing a man really owns are his own needs. It is up to a socialist
society to provide for such needs (i.e. food, clothing, shelter,
- Upon the
overturning of capitalist societies (via revolution), money
and profit will disappear.
needs, rights, demands, and objectives of a nation are bound
by a single nationalism. Nationalism in the world of man, and
group instinct in the animal kingdom, are like gravity in the
domain of mineral and celestial bodies. Nations whose nationalism
is destroyed are subject to ruin.
- The family
is exactly like an individual plant in nature which is composed
of branches, leaves, and blossoms. If human society reached
the stage where man existed without a family, it would become
a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants.
- All living
creatures are created free and any interference with that freedom
and foremost, Qadhafi is an anti-capitalist as reflected in the
first four points. Without question, he has adopted Marx’s views
about capitalism’s alleged exploitation of workers and Marx’s loathing
of money. Secondly, as shown by the last three points, he has melded
National Socialism into his brand of communism (which I call Green
Communism). Much like Hitler viewed Germany as an organic whole
(i.e. made up of people, plants, animals, natural resources, etc.),
Qadhafi views Libya as a collective organism with a "life"
of its own. Naturally, global warming poses a threat to Libya’s
to give you an additional "taste" of how bizarre Qadhafi’s
book is, here is a biocentric excerpt from volume three of The
dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity – i.e.
nurseries replacing mothers – is a start in dispensing with
the human society and transforming it into a biological society
with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their
mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by which
they are transformed into something very close to chicks, for
nurseries are similar to poultry farms in which chicks are crammed
after they are hatched. Nothing else would be appropriate for
man’s nature, and would suit his dignity, except natural motherhood,
(i.e. the child is raised by his mother…) + in a family where
the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood, and brotherhood
prevail, + rather than in a center similar to a poultry breeding
farm. Poultry, like the rest of the members of the animal kingdom,
needs motherhood as a natural phase. Therefore, breeding them
on farms similar to nurseries is against their natural growth.
Even their meat is closer to synthetic meat than natural meat.
Meat from mechanized poultry farms is not tasty and may not
be nourishing because the chicks are not naturally bred, i.e.
they are not raised in the protective shade of natural motherhood.
The meat of wild birds is more tasty and nourishing because
they grow naturally and are naturally fed. As for children who
have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian,
only for them should society establish nurseries and the like.
It is better for those to be taken care of by society rather
than by individuals who are not their parents.
Qadhafi is taking a stab at nurseries and daycares which are now
prevalent in capitalist societies. The comparison of children to
chickens must warm the hearts of animal rights activists (this is
biocentrism at its best). For Libya to remain a strong collective
organism, nothing less than free-range children will do. This is
truly bizarre stuff.
what has Green Socialism brought Libya? It is a third-world country
with an impoverished people. Its main export is well-trained terrorists.
What a utopia.
get back to the alleged threat global warming is posing to humanity.
Paragons of virtue like Qadhafi and Gorbachev are sounding the alarm.
Alas, this alarm is being sounded in order to form a united front
against "capitalist exploitation of Mother Earth" while
the truth about global warming is being ignored (scientific evidence
does not support the assertion of global warming). Environmentalists
are terrorizing people with ghastly misinformation portraying our
impending doom. Ultimately, it is the goal of environmentalists
to terrify people (particularly those living in industrialized nations)
into believing that their conduct has universal implications relevant
to humanity as a whole. If the psychological terror campaign succeeds,
then people (especially in the West) will be browbeaten into trading
liberty and private property rights for the "safety" of
our planet. At this point, Green Socialism will have won using global
warming as its Trojan horse.
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 panel on
climate change and co-authored its report. Here are important excerpts
from his article:
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 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 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 nothing relevant to policy
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.
closing, I would like to clear up an issue that may be confusing.
How can communism and National Socialism (i.e. Nazism) be compatible?
Indeed, Colonel Qadhafi melded together Marxist Communism and National
Socialism in The Green Book. However, let’s go to a much
better book, The
Black Book of Communism, for an answer:
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 the
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.
as Lenin and his successors excluded capitalists and others from
humanity, Hitler and his henchmen excluded Jews, the infirmed, and
others from humanity as well. Tens of millions of people were murdered
at the hands of these totalitarian regimes. As written in The
Green Book, Qadhafi clearly is attempting to exclude capitalists
from humanity. Now do you see the connection?
a shadow of a doubt, environmentalists want people (especially those
living in capitalist countries) to believe their conduct is causing
global warming and, thus, destroying our planet. Therefore, environmentalism
has capitalism in its crosshairs. It is those of us who benefit
from the fruits of Western Civilization that are being turned into
enemies in the daily sociological and political discourse of environmentalists.
Americans, including President Bush, must come to understand that
environmentalism is a serious threat. If we succumb to the global
warming propaganda being thrust upon us daily (with our left-wing
press wittingly or not being used as the primary tool of terror/propaganda),
then Green Socialism stands a chance of dismantling Western Civilization
and throwing us back into the dark ages. Our rights to life, liberty,
and property are at stake here.
Englund [send him
mail], who has an MBA from Boise State University, is a surety
bond underwriter in Bellevue, WA.
needs your help to stay on the air.