The green lobby constantly pushes the view that if you don't fall fully behind them, then somehow you're stupid, immoral, or downright evil. Disagreeing with the concept of AGW, even expressing the slightest doubt, inevitably attracts disdain, abus and vilification from among the more extreme elements of the movement. Thus, a form of thought control is the order of the day, and in many cases some of these eco-fundamentalists are as bad as medieval heretic-hunters or their modern-day totalitarian equivalent (hence the term enviro-fascism).
But even some within their number acknowledge their comrades crossed a line when the 10:10 campaign (which seeks to encourage everyone to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% in 2010... no pressure, mind you) aired a short video today which shocked even many environmentalists. Tongue in cheek? An attempt to bring humour to their message? Quite likely. A spectacular own goal? Most definitely! It demonstrates just how these enviro-fascists think (or rather, how they would have us think). Ironically, greenies keep trying to pull the video, realising how it has caused considerable damage to their cause, but somewhat mischeviously climate change sceptics just keep on uploading it back on the Internet. James Delingpole over the Daily Telegraph has more on the story, together with a link to the film. Be warned, it's pretty graphic.
By the way, 10:10 have apologised today and pulled the film from their website. Indeed, but for this I had assumed it was all a con, so spectacular was this own goal.
There is indeed a lack of respect for human rights in some environmental thinking. It is really born out of nature worship – Hitler’s speeches were full of references to God, but he was really a pantheist along the lines of Spinoza. The greatest good was the Darwinian struggle for survival so that nature might be improved, and this allowed him to kill Jews and others without a conscience. There is a moral compass in green thinking, but for those not Christian it often places the world, plants and animals above human beings (i.e. Peter Stringer’s philosophy values some animals above some human beings). Some wish to reduce the human population to a fifth of its current size.
Great Blog! If only these green people could see themselves from without.
Please visit my blog and leave a comment. http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Be sure to browse the links listed on the RH column.
I also have a site where I record conversations where I have attempted to probe the depth of the bloggers understanding of AGW and why they believe the way they do.
My questions are certainly difficult to answer as they are designed to make the blogger think. It is rare that I receive a rational answer and the site gives a great insite into AGW believer's thinking (or lack of it).
I quite agree with your post. I am increasingly sceptical of the 'green' agenda and am somewhat agnostic on GW issues. Particularly bizarre are those purporting to be liberal who are so keen to control this now all pervading policy area. Equally strange are left-wing sympathisers who happily support measures that impact those on the lowest incomes hardest. As one on the left, I find these inconsistencies somewhat concerning.
Worse than all of this, however, is the unashamed proposal, adopted in a number of mainstream newspaper columns (particularly the Times and Guardian), that can only be described as eugenics. It is not uncommon for commentators to suggest the sterilisation of those who choose to have more than two children and, in the comments under the online versions, for such recommendations to receive widespread support. Given this widely circulated view, the video doesn't seem all that out of character!
Post a Comment