An important aspect of the EM is that it is a new take on the old pagan religions that sacrificed humans to please mother nature--a new take on sacrificing humans on an altar. As compared with other results of the EM policies, this is a mild issue where peoples' livelihood are destroyed, not actual human lives as in several other cases--DDT--that I plan to illustrate throughout several post. This time sacrifices must be made in the name of a fish. Remember, these peoples' means of surviving and making a living must be destroyed to save a fish.
This is from the Hot Air blog: "That would be the San Joaquin Valley in California, one of the most prolific agricultural areas in the country — or at least it was, until environmentalists turned off the water. Did they need it for people in response to the drought? No, because the water that would normally flow to the SJV is getting directed out to sea instead. Environmentalists have chosen to bankrupt an entire ecosystem of farms in favor of protecting the Delta smelt, a three-inch fish that neither feeds people nor eliminates pests from the water system." Human prosperity needs to be sacrificed for a little fish. I would really like to understand the EM reasoning behind this. How do they explain this?
The EM is a medium through which the government is bringing about a transformation of our country and is destructive to human life. When you look at the movement, it is a new take on the old pagan religions that sacrificed humans. As Peter Schwartz stated in _The Philosophy of Privation_, "Environmentalism amounts to a modern, secularized form of religion. It is an ideology that instructs man to prostrate himself before a superior, ineffable force. It is an ideology that declares the human mind too feeble to grasp the complexities of an inscrutable world, or 'ecosystem.' It is an ideology propelled by the desire to have man subordinate himself to a hollowed power--a power which must be placated and paid homage, if man is to receive the gracious bounty upon which his existence depends." When we look at the modern day EM, we can see that this is not some over stated statement. It goes back to the old say that there is nothing new under the sun. By supporting environmentalism, one is supporting a movement that is helping to destroy mankind.
This is a complicated topic for me (an ex-member of the Sierra Club). I have always considered myself an environmentalist, and still do. In fact, when environmentalists pushed protection of the Spotted Owl to preserve virgin forest, I saw it for what it was, a cheap excuse to lock up wilderness, and I was happy about that. We acquired a great continent with lots of resources. We need to exploit them where we can, but I do not support paving over everything to get to them. I do think government is required to keep the brakes on unfettered development. I think this is an area where we can't trust or expect free enterprise to control itself. However, as with most things, liberal environmentalists have taken things too far, and use EP to justify stifling any kind of wealth-creating activity in this land. The San Joaquin valley is one of the richest breadbaskets in American if it gets the irrigation water. Whithering it to protect a small fish in a small area is carrying things way too far, as is also, I now believe, destroying the timber industry in the NW to save an owl (who actually thrives in re-growth settings), along with a humungous list of other things (eg, the entire Global Warming con).
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like your choice of pictures. As you may know, the Aztecs used the ritual slaughter of their enemies to the gods as a method of meat production (as they had wiped out all significant wild game in the area and the native Americans never domesticated any animals). I think environmentalists would love the Soylent Green approach to providing meat, so long as they weren't on the conveyer belt in the slaughterhouse.
ReplyDeleteI like the environment and I hate to see it unnecessarily abused. I do think there should be some limited government regulations to help protect the environment. I do think that the private sector is capable of setting aside pristine land. If the market wants untouched land, then it will create a financial incentive for the market to create it. Land under private stewardship does not need to worry the land being abused--there is a financial incentive to take care of it.
ReplyDeleteThe whole purpose of the image is to show how the EM is a new take on the old pagan religions that sacrifice humans to please or placate mother nature. The EM often sacrifices humans lives and prosperity to protect mother nature. Many EM view humans as a cancer and a disease, including Holdren in Obama's cabinet. The EM is an anti life movement that has been hijacked from its original purposes--I am not sure it the original purpose was to protect nature-- the question is if nature or man is more important--to the purpose of creating a bigger government and as a means to redistribute wealth. The EM is an illustration of how the government and people who want to push a big government agenda use slogans and purposes like saving the environment, helping the poor, providing health care to all, balancing freedom with looking after other people, helping you, and providing for you. All of these reasons are just excuses and window dressings to disguise their true purposes of expanding government and gaining power and control over a people and a nation. It is hard to look past the stated goals and to realized that there are people out there that don't operate according to the same values and standards that we do--it is naive. One has to look at the end result of all of these policies and movements. Don't look at the stated goals. You can not be misguided or misdirected or confused or awe struck or have you heart strings tugged by all of the above mentioned reasons. Look at what it achieves. "Don't bother to examine a folly, only ask what it accomplishes."
The EM is a major vehicle that is carrying change and a fundamental transformation of our system.
ReplyDelete