The sky over New York City was a falling sheet of white. Trails of footprints, work boots, paw prints, sneakers and bird claws, told their own story of how the residents of city were getting through the blizzard to their daily errands. Shoppers lugged home milk as if cows were going extinct. Miniature snowmen decorated mailboxes and garbage trucks towing orange plows clattered down empty streets.
Nowhere in the city was the blizzard more pronounced than in Central Park, designed a century ago to create a miniature forest in the heart of Manhattan. Even the tallest trees, taller than any others in the city, were layered with coats of snow and visibility had vanished into a cloud of whiteness.
And walking along a path in the Ramble, I heard a woman lecturing her children on the dangers of what else, but Global Warming.
There is a madness to walking through a blizzard and discussing Global Warming. A theory according to which we should be sliding toward the tropics, awash in fleeing polar bears and Florida style temperatures, instead of frantically shoveling our driveways.
To believe in Global Warming while stamping the snow off your boots is not a matter of science. It is a matter of faith. The scientist sees what is, while the believer has faith in what he cannot see. The scientist does not see Global Warming in a blizzard.
The Warmist does. To see Global Warming while walking through a blizzard, is itself an act of faith.
Every winter, Global Warming advocates stake their bets on a mild winter. And every winter the snow and ice break their cars and shoes, but never their faith.
Last year the New York Times was predicting the end of snow. This year the New York Times building is snowlogged, but still keeping the faith.
No matter how much slush trails through its lobby, its writers must continue to show people the pernicious effects of people driving to work and using extra shopping bags. Digging out of a snowstorm and their own lies, Global Warming advocates claim that colder winters are actually another effect of global warming. Which may be renamed to Global Temperatures We Don't Like.
Walking through Central Park, it's easy to see how perverse the modern day environmentalist has become in his view of the relationship between man and nature.
Central Park was inspired by one of the co-founders of the Republican party, New York Post editor, William Cullen Bryant, and co-created by Republican architect and landscape designer Frederick Olmsted, to harmonize the natural world and the urban one through human industry.
The New York Republicans of the 19th century viewed public parks as part of their civilizing mission.
Central Park was created as part of an ongoing battle with the corrupt Democratic Tammany Hall machine, which wanted segregated slums and downtrodden workers who would rush to them as saviors and vote how they were told.
Bryant and Olmsted saw parks as a way to improve human health, inspire public citizenship and build a strong republic.
Central Park's beauty is both natural and artificial. Modern environmentalists often mistake it for a preserved space, but its natural beauty was the work of human craftsmanship. The original site was a mess of swamps. The sort of place that the EPA fights tooth and nail to protect for the environment. Had Central Park remained a mass of swamps, the city and the country would have been worse for it.
Instead of preserving the wetlands, Central Park's planners dredged them. They created a place of great natural beauty by taking what was best in the natural world and matching it to human use, instead of blindly worshiping at the pagan altar of "Mother Nature". They built a lake so that visitors could row boats. They set up rambling paths between woodlands of trees that they planted. A meadow rose along with sheep and a shepherd. Everything was natural and artificial.
While today's environmentalists are fixated on holding back human development in order to maintain wetlands, banning DDT to save the mosquito and campaigning against agriculture to reduce population growth-- the visionaries behind Central Park did not restrict human development for the sake of nature, instead they used human industry and the state of the art technology of the time to turn a decrepit site used for slaughterhouse refuse, swamps and shantytowns into a magnificent park that seems effortlessly natural.
They did not do it to glorify nature, but to improve man.
Environmentalists demonize human industry and accomplishment as evil because they worship nature. Humanity spoils the unspoiled natural environment. It kills the mosquitoes, destroys malaria and turns lovely swamps into ugly parks full of hideous children enjoying themselves.
In their worldview, for the environment to prosper, humanity must go into decline. And when humanity prospers, they insist that the environment is in decline.
Conservationists, who included the likes of President Theodore Roosevelt, valued the natural world for what human beings can learn about themselves from engaging with it. That was the philosophy behind Central Park, which to this day remains an elegant demonstration of human accomplishment as applied to the natural world.
Global Warming is an ideological weapon by the environmentalists against human civilization. It is part of a broader anti-civilization agenda by the left, which values the natural world only because it sees it as a "primitive" antidote to the complexities of civilization. That romanticism is the borrowed hostility of the nomad to the farmer (and it is very telling to look at Europe and see its intellectuals championing the virtues of Bedouin nomads over London and Paris) taken up by bored intellectuals, arguing against the complexity of civilization and for the noble barbarism of the savage.
Where the conservationist values the natural world because of its beneficial impact on the human spirit through cultivation and achievement, the Environmentalist does not truly value the natural world, he does not love nature, he only hates civilization. Where the conservationist sought out the natural world for its civilizing effects, the environmentalist seeks it out for its decivilizing effects. He does not want to be a better human man, but less of a man. He wants to be a noble savage.
The conservationist sought to integrate the natural world into our lives in order to build a better civilization. The environmentalist is not interested in building a better human civilization. His objective can only succeed if every human being, every building, factory, car and artifact vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow. His environmentalism is a mask for his hostility to human civilization.
Central Park does not duplicate Manhattan before the arrival of the settlers, a trendy bit of landscaping that environmentalists are rather fond of. But then who besides environmentalists would fancy the idea of reverting Manhattan to a swamp bordered island with poor water sources and high rates of disease? Instead it creates something better, improving on the natural world, cultivating land into a transcendent statement that is more about man than nature.
Where Global Warming insists that everything humans do just makes the world worse, Central Park is a shining statement that says we make it better.
Every Warmunist ad is a parable about the evil of humans who chop down forests, pour oil into the oceans and refuse to put things into clearly marked recycling containers. Central Park opens up the natural world to human activities. The ideas of Olmsted about good citizenship and the natural world did not involve teaching people to leave the natural world alone, but to make it a part of our cities.
Environmentalists today sneer at this attitude. They clamor against hunting and fishing. They agitate to restrict human access to national parks. They push Zero Population Growth and mandatory birth control. Their "Green", like that of the Islamic Green, burns with hate for the Red, White and Blue. For human civilization.
Much of the public thinks environmentalism is a good idea, because they think it's ultimately meant to benefit them. Environmentalism however is an ideology that champions the Supremacy of Nature, better known as the ecosystem covering the surface of the Earth, over man. Where Conservationism believed in the Supremacy of Man, and the utilization of the natural environment for mankind's benefit, the environmentalist doesn't give a damn about mankind's benefit. Less so than he does about an endangered mollusk.
Walking through the blizzard, the trees wreathed in bridal veils of snow, I heard their voices in the distance, a distance that in the whiteness may have been only a dozen feet away. "The scientists say Global Warming is coming", the mother said. "It's too cold out for that," answered the little girl.
Nowhere in the city was the blizzard more pronounced than in Central Park, designed a century ago to create a miniature forest in the heart of Manhattan. Even the tallest trees, taller than any others in the city, were layered with coats of snow and visibility had vanished into a cloud of whiteness.
And walking along a path in the Ramble, I heard a woman lecturing her children on the dangers of what else, but Global Warming.
To believe in Global Warming while stamping the snow off your boots is not a matter of science. It is a matter of faith. The scientist sees what is, while the believer has faith in what he cannot see. The scientist does not see Global Warming in a blizzard.
The Warmist does. To see Global Warming while walking through a blizzard, is itself an act of faith.
Every winter, Global Warming advocates stake their bets on a mild winter. And every winter the snow and ice break their cars and shoes, but never their faith.
Last year the New York Times was predicting the end of snow. This year the New York Times building is snowlogged, but still keeping the faith.
No matter how much slush trails through its lobby, its writers must continue to show people the pernicious effects of people driving to work and using extra shopping bags. Digging out of a snowstorm and their own lies, Global Warming advocates claim that colder winters are actually another effect of global warming. Which may be renamed to Global Temperatures We Don't Like.
Walking through Central Park, it's easy to see how perverse the modern day environmentalist has become in his view of the relationship between man and nature.
Central Park was inspired by one of the co-founders of the Republican party, New York Post editor, William Cullen Bryant, and co-created by Republican architect and landscape designer Frederick Olmsted, to harmonize the natural world and the urban one through human industry.
The New York Republicans of the 19th century viewed public parks as part of their civilizing mission.
Central Park was created as part of an ongoing battle with the corrupt Democratic Tammany Hall machine, which wanted segregated slums and downtrodden workers who would rush to them as saviors and vote how they were told.
Bryant and Olmsted saw parks as a way to improve human health, inspire public citizenship and build a strong republic.
Central Park's beauty is both natural and artificial. Modern environmentalists often mistake it for a preserved space, but its natural beauty was the work of human craftsmanship. The original site was a mess of swamps. The sort of place that the EPA fights tooth and nail to protect for the environment. Had Central Park remained a mass of swamps, the city and the country would have been worse for it.
Instead of preserving the wetlands, Central Park's planners dredged them. They created a place of great natural beauty by taking what was best in the natural world and matching it to human use, instead of blindly worshiping at the pagan altar of "Mother Nature". They built a lake so that visitors could row boats. They set up rambling paths between woodlands of trees that they planted. A meadow rose along with sheep and a shepherd. Everything was natural and artificial.
They did not do it to glorify nature, but to improve man.
Environmentalists demonize human industry and accomplishment as evil because they worship nature. Humanity spoils the unspoiled natural environment. It kills the mosquitoes, destroys malaria and turns lovely swamps into ugly parks full of hideous children enjoying themselves.
In their worldview, for the environment to prosper, humanity must go into decline. And when humanity prospers, they insist that the environment is in decline.
Conservationists, who included the likes of President Theodore Roosevelt, valued the natural world for what human beings can learn about themselves from engaging with it. That was the philosophy behind Central Park, which to this day remains an elegant demonstration of human accomplishment as applied to the natural world.
Global Warming is an ideological weapon by the environmentalists against human civilization. It is part of a broader anti-civilization agenda by the left, which values the natural world only because it sees it as a "primitive" antidote to the complexities of civilization. That romanticism is the borrowed hostility of the nomad to the farmer (and it is very telling to look at Europe and see its intellectuals championing the virtues of Bedouin nomads over London and Paris) taken up by bored intellectuals, arguing against the complexity of civilization and for the noble barbarism of the savage.
Where the conservationist values the natural world because of its beneficial impact on the human spirit through cultivation and achievement, the Environmentalist does not truly value the natural world, he does not love nature, he only hates civilization. Where the conservationist sought out the natural world for its civilizing effects, the environmentalist seeks it out for its decivilizing effects. He does not want to be a better human man, but less of a man. He wants to be a noble savage.
The conservationist sought to integrate the natural world into our lives in order to build a better civilization. The environmentalist is not interested in building a better human civilization. His objective can only succeed if every human being, every building, factory, car and artifact vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow. His environmentalism is a mask for his hostility to human civilization.
Central Park does not duplicate Manhattan before the arrival of the settlers, a trendy bit of landscaping that environmentalists are rather fond of. But then who besides environmentalists would fancy the idea of reverting Manhattan to a swamp bordered island with poor water sources and high rates of disease? Instead it creates something better, improving on the natural world, cultivating land into a transcendent statement that is more about man than nature.
Where Global Warming insists that everything humans do just makes the world worse, Central Park is a shining statement that says we make it better.
Every Warmunist ad is a parable about the evil of humans who chop down forests, pour oil into the oceans and refuse to put things into clearly marked recycling containers. Central Park opens up the natural world to human activities. The ideas of Olmsted about good citizenship and the natural world did not involve teaching people to leave the natural world alone, but to make it a part of our cities.
Much of the public thinks environmentalism is a good idea, because they think it's ultimately meant to benefit them. Environmentalism however is an ideology that champions the Supremacy of Nature, better known as the ecosystem covering the surface of the Earth, over man. Where Conservationism believed in the Supremacy of Man, and the utilization of the natural environment for mankind's benefit, the environmentalist doesn't give a damn about mankind's benefit. Less so than he does about an endangered mollusk.
Walking through the blizzard, the trees wreathed in bridal veils of snow, I heard their voices in the distance, a distance that in the whiteness may have been only a dozen feet away. "The scientists say Global Warming is coming", the mother said. "It's too cold out for that," answered the little girl.
Comments
It is a typical example of 'hybris' to believe that mankind can regulate the global temperature simply by decreasing or increasing the carbon dioxide outlet. In Denmark we call this belief 'AlGorism'.
ReplyDeleteDid the dinosaur not go extinct due to excessive flatulence? May the Warmunists (nice term!) go the same way by through their excessive verbal flatulency, if they do not perish already in the "snowstorm of the century" as the panicky liberal press defined New York present winter storm.
ReplyDeleteClimate Change is the latest Leftist example of "Heads I win, tails you lose." Everything is about the destructive power of Homo sapiens, while in the same breath claiming we are just another creature that belongs to the Earth, Gaea, Mother Nature, and other pagan matriarchal figurine. A voluptuous goddess for people who view human fertility as the core danger, and Americans as gluttonous sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteToday's trendy secular humanist claims man is the measure of all things, while hating man. We are worried about a growing population in America, so we allow abortion to counter it, amidst swelling tides of illegal immigration in the name of "Justice for those who have no voice." It's bizarre, misanthropic madness.
Every natural weather event (including blizzards) is explained by Climate Change, yet geologic history shows the climate is always changing and was always changing... even before the (gasp!) Industrial Revolution. We're told the diverse, fragile ecosystem is dynamic and teeming with life, yet human activity leads to innumerable extinctions every year... we just can't keep up with cataloging those extinctions. There are just too many!
So we need a mindful global body of experts, activists and world leaders to come up with a way to tax an element in the periodic table we also know is the key to life: Carbon (C). And carbon dioxide is bad, too, even though our science classes growing up told us that plants like it.
We're told that carbon is a pollutant, and human activity a vice worthy of "sin taxes." This is all brought to you by the climatologist clergy and their politicos who burn this same carbon flying all over the globe to climate action conferences so they can meet with people who agree with them. Why go talk about "settled science?" We're not permitted to question the hypothesis. We're too stupid. What will they do with all the carbon tax revenue? This is never discussed. Hipsters fall all over themselves to own electric cars that are fueled by coal-fired plants, and are self-congratulatory about their virtue to anyone who will listen. Look at me... I recycle!
Go back to the core philosophy: human beings are the problem, and this crew knows how to fix it: have fewer of them. Or maybe eliminate them. Isn't this kind of romantic primitivism that gave us "The Killing Fields"? But they and their families are exempt, of course. It's more "Heads I win, tails you lose." Except it's all for the planet. Science says so. Which is supposed to make my death so much more palatable. That's the endgame: death. What's the promise? A pristine Garden of Eden without man, the same Garden of Eden we can't talk about in our schools. Who's imposing their values now?
Well said.
DeleteDaniel your writings are works of art. Thank you very much.
We know that if Central Park didn't exist and someone proposed it today, the uproar from the environmentalists (or domestic terrorists) would ensure it never existed. They cannot allow man to flourish as man is the enemy of everything on and in the earth. Man must be looked upon as a predator, a killer of that which Mother Nature created out of nothing. Man is simply a dangerous animal that must be restricted to wanting and acting in the manner of the Earth First (second, third, and only) haters of man decide because they are only working for what is best. Only they are righteous and right. Their religion demands complete surrender and faith in the scientist whose word is The Word because only the scientist, never influenced by government grants, union controlled universities, and wealthy totalitarian donors, is the true god.
ReplyDeleteElaine
No global warmer has ever explained to me why the glacier that covered my house in the midwest some 15000 years ago receded without the help of modern industry and gas engines. How did that much ice suddenly go away? Could it be that the earth cools and warms itself no matter what we do? Or does it do this so some idiots can make money while using more energy than most cities in their guarded compounds? Global warmers are just plain nuts because anyone with any bit of sense knows that we are not responsible for everything that goes wrong on the planet, and to mother nature we are no more than a knat or an ant hill.
ReplyDeleteGreat. You mean gnat, and you're zackary right - to a mosquito a man is just another meal. Farms in Greenland, algore? - who'd a'thunk it you boring mutt.
DeleteDennis Latham: Excellent point.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article on the NYC Blizzard Bust...
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/27950449/missed-call
So this meteorologist has the humility to admit he missed the call on the weather predicted the day before.
But the climate clergy and cash-starved political class claim "the science is settled" based on their modeling the coming decades. And we are all to sacrifice by taxing ourselves into oblivion, not by choice (legislative action that favors conservation), but by government diktat based on an ideological narrative (environmentalism). Will any of these actions work, or is it that maybe (just maybe) human beings are not this evil, all-powerful force of nature. Perhaps nature has its own agenda. That might require a much bigger dose of humility.
Well told. Algore is the king of hubris. Thankfully in the real world (not even counting the spiritual), reality prevails, chickens come home to roost, and types like algore get hoist by their own petards (shame about the $ millions wasted on him, more shame the oxygen).
DeleteToday's environmentalists worship the creation and denigrate the Creator.
ReplyDeleteYes - succinctly put. Like 'Convenience breeds apathy'.
DeleteWhen confronted with the foolishness of the global warming/cooling/whatever alarmism, one should always ask the environmentalist wacko, "Exactly WHAT should the temperature be?"
ReplyDeleteThe infatuation, perhaps obsession, with global warming strikes this observer as an end times scenario for a generation that prides itself on being particularly areligious. Perhaps we are witnessing the birth of a new religion or the rebirth of something very old. Genuinely new ideas are few and far between, but there is always another generation to sell the old ideas to. Faith comforts and delights, the "warmists" faith no less than any other. The underlying sentiment escapes articulation. Why do they hate themselves so?
ReplyDeleteThey love themselves quite a bit. It's us they hate.
ReplyDeleteWhat price is paid for the wrongs done to everyone else by the enlightened few? Staggering, it is, that there is no penalty for being so very provably wrong. Whatever one's views, humanity must continually adapt to changing conditions, else, die. Oh well. Apparently the Betters know Best and the rest can simply submit. Aha. There is a linkage between fundamentalists and liberal ideology. Sarc Off.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant question, re what price the enlightened pay. The magnitude of the potential fallout from their decisions should shape the penalties, and in a Biblical sense. That should focus their thinking somewhat. Vain hope.
DeleteEnvironmentalism has become a Cult. No longer is the focus on doing least harm, but rather the focus has shifted to using guilt/political power/ lawfare to aggregate legal authority over others every choice, action, or thought. An insidious form of oppression, but oppression none the less.
ReplyDeleteWarmist thinking is shallow and devoid of reality. To Wit: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/climate-science-explained-in-one-simple-graph/
ReplyDeleteYou know I enjoy your usual articles on Israel, politics, Islam, etc but when it comes to your writings on scientific issues, I cringe every time I read this. Your article on Cosmos was embarrassing to read, and this one is in the same league.
ReplyDeleteYou dont seem to understand the difference between climate and weather. THe fact that there was a blizzard in NYC in January does not disprove the rising overall global temperatures, due to (shock!) increased pumping of CO2 and other gases by human activity. Why is this so hard to understand? Chinese factories building cheap consumer products for Walmart pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12
Oceans are warming every year, and this has lead to major destruction of sea life and coral reefs, I know because Ive seen this first hand in Caribbean and Great Barrier Reef.
I dont understand some conservatives' religious attachment to denying that human industrial activity can cause climactic changes. This isnt something hard to imagine, just look at China's polluted skyline.
The hottest year ever recorded thing has already been shot down
ReplyDelete"I dont understand some conservatives' religious attachment to denying that human industrial activity can cause climactic changes. This isnt something hard to imagine, just look at China's polluted skyline."
ReplyDelete----
And from China's pollution (or Victorian England's MUCH worse killer smogs) we can extrapolate somehow TEWAWKI (The End of the World As We Know It)?? Warmists are True Believers who run from anecdote to anecdote to build a "science" on the sands of time. Their dogma insists on eternal bad news; eventually people simply quit listening to those crying wolf, even as they thrill one another with their tales of doom.
Go tell it to the Club of Rome, anonymous. Are you among those who experienced the Great Global Famine of the early 21st Century? Your high priests assured us we would starve, so obviously you did so and thus still believe...
Please try to think outside of your established political groupthink.
ReplyDeleteTo compare todays CO2 emission rates to Victorian England is assinine, for one thing the global population in 1800 was less than 1 billion while today its over 7 billion, the amount of factory, vehicle and airline smog has grown exponentially. This in result has caused the quickest rise of surface warming ever observed. Also the polar ice caps have shrunk within the last 15 years to unseen before levels,
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
The hottest year is confirmed by a body of world's climatologists (not political hacks without science degrees)
ITs embarrasing to have to state this, its like arguing with Creationists that Evolution is a fact of biology and life. Im a conservatve, I dont agree that 'carbon tax' is a way to limit the damage we are doing to our planet. But its no use to anyone to pretend that human acttivity of a rapidly rising global population is not causing any change to planetary weather systems when we are dumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while Brasil is busy destroying the Amazon basin with logging and clear cutting, shutting down the natural ability of the planet to offset the added CO2.
Previous CO2 estimates scale had to be expanded by 20 parts per million to accomodate the increased CO2 emission rates,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2014/2/watching-earth-change
"THe fact that there was a blizzard in NYC in January does not disprove the rising overall global temperatures, due to (shock!) increased pumping of CO2 and other gases by human activity."
ReplyDeleteIt was in response to this:
"And walking along the path in the Ramble, I heard a woman lecturing her children about what else, Global Warming."
Again, the Warmunists play this game of "Heads, I win, tails, you lose." You honestly don't think the Climate Change crowd ramped up the rhetoric during hurricane seasons past, or during hot temps? That's all weather. Hurricanes as much as blizzards. Everything imaginable is blamed on Climate Chage, and the core assumption is that climate does not change. We're told to believe all this evidence that the Earth is this dynamic ecosystem, but somehow can't deal with too much CO2.
The Earth absorbs particulates. Looks at what happens after a volcanic eruption: temporary changes (weather), but long term climate impact is negligible. One serious volcanic eruption negates all the doomsday scenarios, because everything turns out okay.
Being conservative (which is a political bearing, not a religion) is about (a) distrusting fads and sudden swings in popular tastes; (b) affirming human nature and man's capacity for both wisdom and self-delusion; (c) acknowledging the existence of evil, and man's attraction to manifest power and act selfishly; and (d) recognizing the fantasy of an all-powerful, all-knowing government serving the good of the people as a impartial agent for the bubbling abundance of human altruism.
What cannot be denied in the Climate Change debate is that the Warmunists view government bodies as the stewards and chieftains of Earth's great climate challenges. They have identified and prescribed confiscatory remedies, promulgated by those scientists who would explain the complexities of climate in a model that was impossible to generate years ago, and can't accurately predict what's happening tomorrow. Does this seem at all silly? It is. What will they do with all their carbon tax revenue? Go to some altar and sell it back? No, no, no... they'll spend it, funding all their friends' fraudulent green initiatives. Oops, that's already happened, hasn't it?
Who are you going to believe? Hell, we're all supposed to be burning up here in 2015. The "time is fast running out" warnings have come and come for years. In the 1970s, global cooling meant death. Detect a pattern? Yep, no one has any idea what they're talking about. Hypnosis comes in the form of "Studies say..." Catalonia comes in the form of "Science says..."
The whole "weather isn't climate" mantra is rubbish spoken by people who desperately WANT to beliveve human beings ae destroying the Earth. Not because human beings are the collective source of dealing with such problems, but that there must be fewer (much fewer) of other stupid (read: conservative) people who are the problem. Have a PhD? You won't be voted off the island. It's like "Logan's Run" for scientists and bureaucrats. Who must be sacrificed? It's always someone else's children.
The problem is not the problem. The problem is the audacity, preposterousness and self-serving nature of the climatologist's remedies. It all ends up with more government, imposing more scarcity, based in a solution that will never work, because we cannot control the climate. And then civil service laws prevent the dismantling of the apparatus, so "We might as well get something for all the money we're spending." Think I'm off base? Look at the Department of Education, which educates... no one.
I was in High School in California when the first Moon landing took place and we held a discussion about it in class. I will never forget that one of the students, who I later found out had a serious drug problem stated something to the effect that "why should we go to the Moon and ruin it like we have ruined the Earth?". The Moon is a lifeless ball of rock. How can mankind ruin a "dead" plane?. This just proves what I have come to realize that many"progressives" seem to be unhappy people and they resent those of the human race who aren't unhappy like them so they would be just as pleased if we would all disappear, as indeed European "progressives" are putting into effect by not having children. This is why they ally themselves to destructive forces like Communism or Radical Islam. For that matter, many volunteers for the Waffen SS in World War II had anti-Capitalist and what would be considered today "progressive" views on many issues. Albert Speer discussed this in his memoirs. French intellectuals created something called "National Bolshevism" which was a pro-Nazi movement after the defeat of 1940 but it only lasted up until the Hitler decided to go to war with the beloved "progressive" Stalin. So we see there is nothing new here with the self-prorclaimed "lovers of humanity" that hate people.
ReplyDeleteY. Ben-David:
ReplyDeleteIt's like they say: "If you're not outraged, you don't know what's going on."
Down here in South Texas, I enjoy burning old tires to release carbon. I practice my little seance with nature whenever I have a chance. Carbon is a common element within our earth, and the ultimate recycling is to release all elements back to their simple beginnings.
ReplyDeleteAs for environmentalists, most if not all need to be taken behind the barn and donate their blood, via slit throat, to nature.
Warmists might be more believable if they weren't lying most of the time. To Wit:
ReplyDeletehttps://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/a-global-epidemic-of-data-tampering-at-the-us-government/
And in San Francisco, there is a strong Green movement to eradicate all 'non native plants species'....which includes returning Golden Gate Park to its natural state of sand dunes.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment