TWO QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD BE ASKING ABOUT LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
After reading in this blog about Liberal Environmentalist policies that:
After reading in this blog about Liberal Environmentalist policies that:
1. Exterminated a “Threatened” fish those policies were alleged to save.
2. Attempted to cover up mistake #1 by poisoning an entire stream killing all living things in it, including any other “threatened species” that might live there. On top of all this the poison has been shown to pose a threat of causing onset of Parkinson’s Disease in humans.
3. Advocate a “restoration” policy that actually has been shown to have made things worse in 60+ years of a trial created to demonstrate the policy's effectiveness.
And...
After seeing dramatic evidence in comparison photographs revealing that Conservative Environmental policies succeeded in the same cases where liberal methods failed so miserably. (See (name posts))
You should be asking yourself at least two questions.
First:
What are Liberal Environmentalists really trying to do? (Because saving fish, restoring ecosystem health, and the like are obviously not their main goal. In fact they don’t seem to be their goal at all)
And the second question, which I find much more interesting:
Why does Nature respond so much more positively to Conservative Environmentalism than to Liberal Environmentalism?
The quick answer to the second question is: Because Nature is a conservative..., but we’ll get to that in a minute. First I’d like to tackle question #1...
What are Liberal Environmentalists really trying to do?
I’ve spent the last 10 years of my 35+ year career as an environmental activist puzzling over how people who profess to be absolutely dedicated to the environment and its health could harm it in ways such as those I have described in this blog and act as if nothing was wrong.
How could they keep working and fighting so hard to do what they do even though in many cases their actions achieve the exact opposite of what they claim is their life’s purpose?
FOLLOW THE MONEY?
Some have explained this disconnect by suggesting that environmentalists really don’t care about the environment; that they do what they do because it brings them political power and money, and because it enables them to feel holier than the rest of us, or smarter, or smugger, or greener. Some say environmentalists do what they do because they are socialists or marxists and claiming to defend the environment from capitalism justifies their efforts to destroy it.
Some have explained this disconnect by suggesting that environmentalists really don’t care about the environment; that they do what they do because it brings them political power and money, and because it enables them to feel holier than the rest of us, or smarter, or smugger, or greener. Some say environmentalists do what they do because they are socialists or marxists and claiming to defend the environment from capitalism justifies their efforts to destroy it.
All of the above is true, but not in the way most of us think. Actually it is true in a way that even liberal environmentalists are not aware of. Most of the environmentalists I know say that money and power really don’t matter to them. That they are activists purely and solely because of their concern for the health and future of the environment. And I believe they mean that, but consider the following...
All environmentalists I know say they want to “protect” the environment. Nearly every environmental group I know of has the word “protection” either in their name or in their mission statement. (There’s even a group named “Republicans for Environmental Protection.”)
In our society the institution responsible for protecting things is the government. For that reason, whether intentional or not, “protecting the environment” inevitably happens via the government. This puts contemporary environmentalism inescapably in the big government/liberal camp because liberals are the ones who try to solve everything via the government and regulation.
IF IT MOVES REGULATE IT
For instance: When the banking system almost collapsed in 2008 all we heard from liberals is: The banks need to be more regulated.
When the BP Deep Water Horizon oil well blew up and started spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico the only solution liberals could conceive of was more regulation.
When Dems declared our health care system didn’t work, the solution, they said, was — more regulation
Global warming — more regulation
Global cooling — more regulation
Severe weather — more regulation
Severe weather — more regulation
Unemployment too high — more regulation
Economy in crisis — more regulation
Too much oil from overseas— more regulation
Some people have more money than others— more regulation
Endangered species — more regulation
You name it — more regulation, or, in other words, more protection, which means more government.
And in every case, the programs created to administer these regulations — Affirmative Action, Planned Parenthood, Public Health Care, Environmental Protection, Wilderness Designation — extend the authority of government into areas of our lives that range from the most momentous (having or not having children) to the most trivial (what light bulbs we can use.) This, in turn, expands the power over our lives of liberals who advocate and administer these programs.
In other words programs that protect and regulate actually pump political power into the hands of the protectors.
THIS WILL GET YOUR ATTENTION!
Here’s an illustration...
The illustration starts with a question: What modern government passed the first wilderness law, the first endangered species act, the first animal rights laws, the first antivivisection law, was the first to protect wolves, and the first to ban DDT? (Hint: This government was not in the U. S.)
Answer: Nazi Germany passed The Reichsnaturschutzgesetz law (Reich Nature Protection Act) in 1935. The purpose of the act, according to Duncan Bayne in How To Spot a Nazi, was to enable the Nazis to use their purported desire for “preventing harm to the environment" as a justification for increasing control over the German populace. One way in which that worked was by requiring that decisions on how a person could use their property had to be first approved by the Reich. (Sound familiar?)
 |
| Nazis considered themselves protectors of the animals as per this cartoon of rabbits and other animals giving the Nazi salute to Hermann Goering. |
Knowing what we know about Nazis, which criterion do you believe German fascists used to judge the success of this law: Whether it protected the environment? or, Whether it expanded their political power?
I’d bet on the latter.
In the same way that the Reich Nature Protection Act expanded the political power of the Nazis in early twentieth century Germany, environmental laws are expanding the political power of the left in the contemporary USA and extending it into all corners of our lives.
Please note that I’m not saying liberal environmentalists are Nazis or that they hate Jews or want to start a World War. However, there are striking similarities between the two political movements. Both allege that they are the one and only true friend of Nature. Both believe that they are mankind’s only hope to avoid destruction, that they are destined, no, required to lead, and that they are the only ones with the answers and the remedy to heal what ails the world.
With that as a basis, the Nazis believed and contemporary liberal environmentalists believe that there is no aspect of your life so personal, so private, or so trivial that they should not control it. (In this regard enviros may even be outdoing the Nazis. I know of no attempt by the Third Reich to control the number of sheets of toilet paper you should use or to dictate how much salt you put on your food.)
(See note below for something too outrageous to include here.)
I also believe that this provides us with the answer to question # 1: What are Liberal Environmentalists really trying to do? (Because saving fish, restoring ecosystem health, and the like are obviously not their main goal.),
Environmentalists didn’t admit failure when their removal of cattle from along the Verde River apparently caused the demise of the Verde River spikedace for the simple reason that, for them, it wasn’t a failure. They succeeded in forcing the U. S. Forest Service to remove cattle and private management from public lands along the river, which is what they intended to do. Concern for the spikedace merely provided the cover and the means to do the job. In other words, they achieved their goal. They increased their political power.
Dead spikedace or no, the program was a success.
WHY YOU SHOULD READ THIS BLOG (BECAUSE IT PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF LIBERALISM’S FAILURES FROM A NEW SOURCE: NATURE HERSELF)
Last, but not least, consider this footnote. Conservative pundits have been telling us for years that liberal programs such as the War on Poverty, Affirmative Action, etc. are a failure, but the evidence they provide is at least open to interpretation. The case of the Verde River spikedace, the Drake Exclosure, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and others yet to come on this blog give us concrete evidence that liberal programs don’t work — evidence in the form of dead fish, barren landscapes, and birdless habitats. Better yet, that evidence is provided by none other than Nature itself.
Environmentalists have a saying: “Nature bats last.” On this blog, she bats next when we consider question #2:
Why does Nature respond so much more positively to Conservative Environmentalism than to Liberal Environmentalism?
Stay tuned.
NOTE:
(I include this here, because if I had added it earlier, it would have overshadowed this post to the point that you might not have been able to read the rest of it, let alone remember it.)
The most chilling similarity between Contemporary Liberal Environmentalists and Hitler’s Nazis is: The “solutions” offered by both for the world’s problems, environmental and otherwise, include the elimination of huge numbers of humans. For instance, when the “2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist,” advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola (a viral disease that causes people to bleed to death through their bodily orifices). He was given a standing ovation by the Texas Academy of Science.
