Would it be fair to say that Al Gore is an environmentalist? Do you think that he is about to reconsider his position? Perhaps in light of the environmentalist movement murdering hundreds of Victorians (with at least equal culpability to any stray arsonist) do you suppose he will change his mind?
Well no he is not going to change his mind. And the mass-murdering, demonic, environmentalist movement is not going to stop killing unless we stop it.
But surely people can change can they not? Surely Al Gore could look at what his ideas and his movement has accomplished in Victoria and reconsider things?
No chance at all. Because if the environmentalist movement can muder tens of millions of black kids by DDT bureaucratisation, then they have GONE TOO FAR ALREADY…. and they will only be stopped from WITHOUT the movement.
The same mentally deranged impulse, that wants to stop property owners from cutting down their own trees on their own land, is the selfsame anti-human mind-demon that wants to put all sorts of hurdles, costs, and restrictions upon the use of DDT. And Al Gore is just typical of a fellow who is carrying around all these diseased and toxic memes.
Here he is voting for cancer-and-trees over humans. Think about what we mean by “humans” here. That is your beautiful girl who stuck with you in the hard times even though you know damn well you are hell to live with. Thats your boy who fought with you all his teenage years and you had to rent a flat for him just to stop the arguments and now he’s forty and your 65 and he thinks you are the best Dad in the universe and will not be gainsayed on the matter. Thats the young girl that lived up your road when you were a kid and played with your little sisters and she always looked up to you like she was starstruck but she was a tall young thing and you couldn’t see it working in those days and now 50 years on, your first wife has gone and you find that she still looks upon you the same and always did and nothing has changed…………. These people not worth 3 trees each in the view of environmentalists.
Just as Victorian environmentalists in conjunction with the councils voted in favour of fireballs over country people and their property.
“The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast, and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice – sacrifice the tree for a human life – until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated.”
Did you know that he was that much of a lunatic? Did you know that your greenie environmentalists are also fascists of this ilk? These are the people we have allowed to set us all up for harm, to lie to the kids at school, and to undermine the natural right that we all have to control our own property. If environmentalist are American ask yourself how many of them are against missile-defense? 99% perhaps?
So we see that the Victorian regulators put fireballs and trees above country Victorians, and Al Gore puts cancer and trees ahead of humans not as wealthy as himself. But did you know that Al Gore was also one of those folks who tirelessly propagandized in favour of the DDT bureaucratisation holocaust????
“…Look no further than Gore’s tirades against another Nobel-winning achievement: the life-saving insecticide DDT………
…….. As late as 1996, he called DDT a “notorious compound” that “presented serious human health risks.” The tragedy is that on this issue, Gore could have used his tremendous political capital to make a difference in reducing malaria deaths.”
So its not as if he hasn’t had plenty of time to assess the damage that he has done. This is not some naieve 18 year old undergraduate we are talking about here.
Yet he is still an environmentalist. How many people get cured of environmentalist extremism once they have been given over to it?
So the enviromentalists are not going to now campaign for property rights so that you can decide which trees to sell off for firewood without asking council permission. They are not going to stop lying about the evidence behind global warming. They are not going to stop controlling the last draft of every report coming out of the CSIRO to do with any one of their pet mass-lying campaigns.
It is up to all of us to recognize that this movement is a mass-murdering movement, a menace, and not something that is going to just call it quits.
We can look at the movement and individuals seperately and while individuals within this movement may be of mixed characteristics, the movement as a whole is almost completely murderous. Imagine a cyclone and the damage that it can cause. Yet most of the billions of the air molecules that make up this phenomenon are really just going with the flow, are not acting violently in any shape or form, and are simply acting in line with the other air molecules around them. So while we can get particularly repulsive environmentalists who are fundamentally death-worshipers, you may yourself feel some disconnect with what I’m saying.
You may know family members who are environmentalist-lite and you may see them as really good people despite this mental handicap that just perplexes you somewhat. And the fact is that your judgement may be sound in this matter. The man or women in question may have redeeming qualities and may be like a typical air molecule in a cyclone who just goes with the flow of received opinion and tends to be a bit more moderate and reasonable then his other greenie associates.
So its important to think of the movement as something different to individuals within it, and those who it influences (which is, after all, almost all of us.)
While the opinions and goals of your friends may be hard to predict in advance, the direction of the environmentalist movement, personified and taken as a whole, is known well in advance and is entirely predictable. This movement is out to destroy property rights, murder and enslave humans, and dwindle their numbers down to almost nothing.
This movement is also out to control what genes get to be passed on, and there are very many genes they do not approve of for perverse reasons. This is a repulsive movement that cannot be rightly disaggregated from the push towards global governance. This is a horrifying and ugly movement that has no affinity for science or nature, but that is totally destructive to humans and is usually appallingly harmful to the natural world as well.
If comparisons were to be made between environmentalism and the the philosophy that motivated the Third Reich we can say, quite without controversy, that the death toll from the environmentalist movement is already higher than the death toll that the Third Reich bequeathed to a less-than-fully-vigilante world.
But when it comes to the environmentalist movement ‘you aint seen nothing yet’. If this hateful scourge-of-a-movement, acheives its goals…. that is to say if outsiders don’t actively exterminate this movement……… then the number of people victimised unto death will dwarf anything that the SS could have perpetrated in 1000 years. The upper leadership of the National Socialists would wonder at the lunacy and sheer destructiveness of environmentalism. Oddball killers that they were, still they would shake their heads in disbelief at the mindless cruelty of it all.
Just for one example, this movement wants the human race to produce and consume less energy per capita, and not massively MORE energy per capita, as any competent ethicist would mandate. This despite the fact that the average human lives on maybe 2 or 3 dollars a day.
Compared to the environmentalist movement the Third Reich were models of honour and straightforwardness. The National Socialists often told the truth. The environmentalist lie all the time and they get kids using phrases that never mean what they say. For example when an environmentalist uses the phrase “sustainability” he is not talking about sustainability………
Authentic sustainability is a bit of an obsession of mine. Pretty much everything I’m on about has sustainability at its core. But the environmentalists aren’t interested in sustainability though they have monopolised on the word.
When the environmentalist uses the word susutainability he is talking about the total destruction of property rights. So any farmer in country Victoria would have to know that he has no right to do anything at all on his property. He is frozen as to his options. He cannot follow business strategy or his own creativity. If he cuts the trees he can be fined or jailed. If he doesn’t cut the trees he can be accused of not making good use of his land and there may be consequences and repurcussions.
The goal of sustainability, in no way is about sustainability. Rather its about effective nationalisation of your property and therefore your person.
Think about the other phrases this movement has gotten people using. When people talk about “global warming” they aren’t talking about global warming in any consistent way. Usually what they mean, whether they know it or not is “INDUSTRIAL-CO2-RELEASE”
You will not find anything coming out of the UN or the CSIRO on this subject, where normal phrases are used in their normal sense. “Climate Change” is “global warming” when cold conditions happen to be uppermost in peoples mind. But “global warming” isn’t global warming. Rather its industrial-CO2-release.
The effect of pushing human dishonesty to its outer limits with this sort of phraseology, is that these people are able to lie all the time. The abuse of the language in this way allows these guys to lie all the time, and even to lie when they are telling the literal truth.
So what is to be done?
Well the first thing for any sane person to do, is to stop calling themselves an environmentalist. You are faced with the choice of finding a new name for yourself, or wrenching the name off these crazies and finding other names for them.
I must confess to being a bit of a biodiversity festishist, with a sentimental weakness for big-brained mammals and wild horses.
Particularly those Brumby horses that enrage environmentalists so much that they steal your money and set off after these horses in helicopters to murder them in an environment of screaming fear.
So after you have deep-sixed the name, the next thing is to look within your own heart and weed out any of these hateful predjudices that the environmental punditti have thrust into you.
Do you fear CO2? Co2 is life. Our planet would be a better place the higher were the levels of it, right up beyond 1500 parts per million.
Do you worry about foreigners having lots of babies? Well this may well be a MILITARY threat to us. But it is no ecological threat, under capitalism properly-considered. Capitalism properly-considered, would include sound land use policies, no height restrictions on buildings, no zoning, nature corridors everwhere, and the homesteading of property; only on the basis of initial powerfully-intensive use per area aquired.
Do you fear we are running out of energy?
We have a grave (IMMENSELY GRAVE) medium term problem of the environmentalist movements own making. The problem has been caused by environmentalism, interventionism more generally, and the advent of fiat-fractional-reserve particularly. But it is a medium-term problem unless we let it lead to our destruction. It may take us as much as three decades to dig ourselves out of this hole even under good policy. But if evironmentalism has its way we can never get out of this hole and industrial civilisation will collapse, and this is nothing we will be warning our grandchildren about.
But there is no INHERENT energy problem. We have deep-sea Clathrates for 1000 years. We have coal that might peak in its production late this century, but only because of the poxy environmentalists hampering of nuclear power generation.
We have uranium for thousands of years before it could even begin to get expensive to gather. We have far more thorium then that. We have helium 3 to splurgE; readily available on the surface, without serious digging, on all bodies in the solar system not protected by a thick atmosphere.
And we have Boron to dwarf all of the above in its abundance and potential as a power supply.
For nearer term difficulties we can turn thin strips of previously utterly worthless coal, hundreds of metres underground, into syngas.
Thanks to some very righteous and entrepreneurial Australian pioneers (building on the work of brilliant German chemists) we can now exploit thin strata of very deeply buried coal, without digging any holes thicker then an environmentalists head.
In the not too distant future we will be able to turn household rubbish into syngas and ceramics no problem at all. But all these things would be made vastly more economic with off-peak nuclear electricity, nuclear heat, and nuclear-generated hydrogen.
There is no problem with energy per se. All we need is the capital, liberty, and clear and strong property rights and regulations , to enable us to just GET-OUT-THERE and gather all those ergs.
Well what next then?
So once you have stopped getting about calling yourself an environmentalist….. Once you have cleansed your inner-world of those received anti-life perversions, that the environmentalist movement has drummed into you ………….. well what next?
The strategy is to attack the first inner layer of the environmentalist movement. Not the calm nutters who will tell you that they want earths population of homo sapien to be destroyed down below 100 million. Not the outright genocidalists. You don’t stop a cyclone by focusing on the eye of the storm. Its that first outer layer that you must stomp. Kill the first outer layer and the movement drifts into harmless eddies and warm rain showers.
Environmentalism must be fought unto extinction on the local front particularly. Think localism localism localism.
You people out in Country-Victoria or Country-New South Wales, must not suffer any environmentalist influences coming from the big city. You must not elect locals who are soft-headed enough to be armtwisted by this sort of influence. You must vote for only the most absolutely staunch enablers. The most committed staunch enablers of PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE AUTONOMY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. No folks of a constitution likely to be nudged in th wrong direction on this matter can be elected even if they are 10 0ut 0f 10 types in all other ways.
You want people who will enable property owners to do exactly what they want with their property.
If that means chase out all the foreign species, control the hydrology, and set up a glorious hyper-abundant ecology based around the local fauna and flora you must have everyone know that they can do this and not so much as humiliate themselves by asking council approval.
And if someone wants to flatten all the trees on their place so they can more easily landscape their area, well you want people on council, who would find it a social faux pass, to even so much as ASK a landowner what he intends to do with his place.
The next thing is we cannot suffer people of known environmentalist bent in public sector jobs. So Ken Henry has to go because; is he not a CO2-bedwetter? Gruen’s a CO2-bedwetter. What is he doing on the public payroll? He ought not be let anywhere near the public purse. He’ll only blow billions of dollars on idiocy if you let him near treasury just for one example. And he cannot be allowed influence on policy more generally.
No environmentalist type can be allowed to get anywhere near public policy. For one thing they will then start hiring all their treasonous amigos and in no time flat, they will be selling us out to the UN and the mosquitos both.
You think that this sort of thing is unnecessary but you are wrong.
WE WANT A REAL WITCHHUNT.
We need a real witch-hunt and a witch-hunt is the moderate way to go. A witch-hunt in this context is the epitome of moderate behaviour. Because if we get them off government jobs early on, via the real focus of a generalised witch-hunt, we will not have to do anything nasty later down the track.
The environmentalists will not stop their collective treason and killing.
These are grown adults who have lived in Australia all their lives most of them. Why would they simply not let people cut down the trees close to their houses? Why would they require them to get permission for this? Or make them feel bad about it? Or block them outright? Why would they do these things?
Why did they not just listen to the fire experts, or better still not require property owners to ask council permission for any damn thing?
You know what fuel is. I know what fuel is. We all know about Australian bushfires.
The environmentalists in their heart wanted these people dead. How could it be otherwise? At the very least, like Al Gore, the environmentalists would put three trees ahead of one Country-Victorian.
Always remember that it was environmentalists that murdered Brian Naylor. May his memory be King Hamlets ghost to you.