To understand how the environmentalists have turned conservation into political activism requires a fundamental insight into Marxism …
A Marxists primer …
Above all, they believe that man is rather unexceptional and simply part of the natural ecosystem.
That there are some who have a level of native intelligence or acquired learning which sets them apart from the ordinary individual and that these individuals should constitute a ruling elite acting on behalf of the “collective” population.
That our eco-system is finite and that we need to protect the planet at any cost. Leading to theories regarding the necessity to curtail population growth and industrialization at any means. Which gives rise to support for contraception, sterilization, abortion and the rise of non-procreative homosexuality. And wealth re-distribution which saps funds from developed nations into a sinkhole of undeveloped nations.
That any worship of a system that gives rise to moral absolutes: good vs. evil, is bad for those seeking control – thus atheism is a fundamental tenet of the Marxist doctrine.
And worst of all, they believe that the end justifies the means. That is, the end having been defined, they are willing to use any means at their disposal, fair or foul, to achieve their end.
But in the final analysis, as it has been since man organized into clans and tribes, it is about one political group of people controlling the Earth’s natural assets and other people for their own benefit. Which often requires a totalitarian regime in which the leaders and their supporters divide up the spoils, leaving the rest as subsistence sustenance for the remainder. Make no mistake about it: Marxism and its supporting environmentalism is about CONTROL over nations, economies, populations and most importantly, individuals.
There is no doubt in my mind that the United States is the greatest stumbling block to totalitarian regimes ever encountered in history. And as much as I hate saying it, so-called benevolent institutions which purportedly support the primacy of man and a moral belief system, such as the Catholic Church, support Marxist causes as long as their fiefdom and power remains relatively unchallenged.
The key to gaining and maintaining power: funding …
Since the collapse of the old Soviet Union, with its dysfunctional central planning and crony-corruption, the very same lovers of totalitarian regimes have found a new home and a new voice in environmentalism. Where they can use our own liberal laws and ethics against us … not to mention subverting our national institutions using pseudo-science and a faux concern for education. Education which gets worse and worse as time progresses.
Create a crisis, hijack funding and exert control …
With due respect to Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, these peoples are the masters of using real or artificial crises to generate funding and to exert control over sectors of the population.
A present-day example …
By way of background, nature appears to be infinitely diverse and equipped with self-defense and self-regulating feedback properties. The natural evolution of planetary plant and animal life seems to be cyclical and not well-understood by man. While it is true that man’s interference with the habitat can cause harm to certain species, there is nothing in nature which suggests that these species cannot adapt by moving or undergoing other changes. The theory that man needs to preserve certain species to assist nature or for the historical record should not give rise to any movement which seeks to impose their totalitarian control on the freedoms of man. Which begs the question of the supremacy of man over his environment.
As reported by Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post …
“Global extinction crisis looms, new study says”
“A growing number of creatures could disappear from the earth, with one-fifth of all vertebrates and as many as a third of all sharks and rays now facing the threat of extinction, according to a new survey assessing nearly 26,000 species across the globe.”
“In addition, forces such as habitat destruction, over-exploitation and invasive competitors move 52 species a category closer to extinction each year, according to the research, published online Tuesday by the journal Science. At the same time, the findings demonstrate that these losses would be at least 20 percent higher without conservation efforts now underway.”
"’We know what we need to do,’ said Andrew Rosenberg, senior vice president for science and knowledge at the advocacy group Conservation International and one of the paper's co-authors. ‘We need to focus on protected areas, both terrestrial and marine.’"
Somehow “knowing what needs to be done” is less about science and more about securing funding and control over the political agenda. Remember: most advocacy groups were started to personally benefit their founders and the organization’s leadership in personal, professional and profit terms. Prestige, power, profits – and the promotion of a political agenda which supports the supremacy of the group.
“The survey, conducted by 174 researchers from 38 countries, came as delegates from around the world are meeting in Nagoya, Japan, to debate conservation goals for the coming decade. “
Do you see the creeping Marxism?
“While many industrialized countries have undertaken conservation efforts at home and helped fund this work overseas, ‘the reality is we're still exporting degradation across the world" by taking food and other resources from the developing world, according to co-author Nicholas K. Dulvy.”
"’We've transformed a third of the habitable land on earth for food production,’ said Dulvy, who co-chairs the IUCN's shark specialist group. ‘You can't just remove that habitat without consequences for biodiversity."’
“You can't just remove that habitat without consequences for biodiversity” raises an interesting question which is almost never asked by those who promote environmental activism. To what extent should we subjugate man’s needs for water, food, shelter and employment to a lesser-developed life form or plant life? To some, the question can be answered with the practicality that man needs to survive at all costs. Answered by religious teachings that reinforce that man has the moral right to take what he needs from the planet to not only survive, but to thrive. Answered by the environmentalists by demanding population control to reduce man’s so-called “footprint” on Planet Earth.
Can’t have an environmental discussion without considering that other crisis funding mechanism: Global Warming …
'”Norway's environmental minister, Erik Solheim, who is attending the talks in Nagoya, said in an interview that this sort of accelerating biodiversity loss, coupled with climate change, should compel nations to act boldly: ‘Very clearly, there's an increasing sense of urgency here,’ he said.”
There is always a call to bold, urgent action lest we suffer the consequences of our wayward actions. Bold, urgent action always translating into funding and political control. Never to mention that the call is only backed with a hypothesis put forth in a study of an ill-understood subject.
We want to control your land, your economies and your people …
“Environmental groups are pushing for a goal of protecting 25 percent of all land on earth and 15 percent of the sea by 2020. At the moment, roughly 14 percent of terrestrial areas and less than 1 percent of the ocean enjoy some degree of environmental safeguards.”
Something which supports creeping “internationalism” and the destruction of national sovereignty in favor of an international form of governance. (Like the corrupt Marxist United Nations)
“The new study documents the impact of such policies - 64 vulnerable species have begun recovering due to concerted conservation efforts, the article says. It provides a snapshot of how the world's birds, mammals and amphibians has evolved over three decades.”
“Two American species that had become extinct in the wild, the California condor and the black-footed ferret, have both made gains after being reintroduced, while several island species have boosted their numbers after humans took steps to shrink populations of invasive predators that were targeting them.”
Bad choice of example …
I have widely studied the California Condor situation because it is being used to push for gun control in California using “lead shot” as a reason to ban guns and ammunition from wide swaths of California lands. What they do not say is:
California Condors serve absolutely no known function in California’s ecosystem and yet are being artificially maintained as exotic outdoor pets that need to be fed and maintained with medical assistance by caregivers. Something which provides multi-million dollar funding to institutions and their employees.
That there is a history of malfeasance and outright chicanery in reports which purport to show “lead ingestion damage” to these birds. The death of one or two birds with a “reported” high level of lead in their blood ignores the fact that the birds eat garbage with jagged edges (perforated organs) and are wont to drink antifreeze and other contaminated liquids.
And the scientists fail to tell the public that they are inducing further genetic damage into the Condor population by inbreeding from only a few matriarchal blood lines.
Bottom line …
We find a great deal of dishonest or suspect scientific reporting which suggests that the goal of such reports is more about funding and a political agenda than it is about the science.
Almost all of the current environmental laws, rules and regulations cannot pass Constitutional muster and are an illegal and unwarranted infringement upon our rights as citizens. There is no mandate in the United States Constitution which empowers the federal government to take control over our land, air and waterways for the purposes of conservation or any other purposes related to global climate control. And those Justices in the Supreme Court who attempt to create rights and permissions for federal actions where none really exist are, in fact, shirking their sworn responsibility.
We also find that politicians and others are afraid to upset other liberals, the so-called Bambi generation” which regards wildlife as pets rather than as a source of sustenance. Children often think that meat comes from supermarkets on Styrofoam plates and have little or no real knowledge of food production lest it upset their little psyche and fail to produce liberals -- “perfect people for a perfect planet.”
Our freedoms are slipping away to those who are using our laws and our science against us. It is time to elect honest brokers to serve we the people. Candidates who will support the primacy of man and reject totalitarian philosophies. Who will curtail funding to those who do not wish America well.
Vote on November 2, 2010 for someone who believes America is great, people need to be free and that someone should hold the Marxists and other liberals to account for their egregious actions.
P.S. I am all in favor of man’s stewardship of the planet and control over air, water and land pollution – but not Marxism.
Reference Links …
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell