0 comment Sunday, November 16, 2014 | admin
Have you read about the lights going off around the world?
''SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) - People switched off lights across the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming.
Up to 30 million people were expected to switch off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started at 8 p.m. in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westwards.''
Are any of you observing 'Earth Hour' and turning off your lights at the designated time? Apparently we're supposed to turn off our lights at 8 o'clock local time, according to what I have heard.
This is typical liberal 'activism': a symbolic show with little of substance behind it. As if turning off our lights for 60 minutes would forestall this global warming doomsday that they keep prophesying.
It's not that I am one of those 'conservatives' who scorns concern for the environment just because of the liberal hysteria aboout it. It's true that the left and the liberals go overboard in their obsessing about Mother Earth, and it's true that much of their purported concern for the environment is limited to a kind of neo-Luddite hatred of our first-world lifestyle, mingled with a loathing for Big Business and all its works. However, having said that, I don't completely disregard environmental concerns; I think much of the damage to the environment is a result of overpopulation in most of the world, and of course 'most of the world' is taken up by the hallowed 'developing countries', who are for some reason held blameless when it comes to environmental damage. The best thing that could be done for the environment would be to stop all this reckless overpopulating, which is, after all, the main reason for this flood of immigration which threatens to overwhelm the entire Western world. Third World peoples keep breeding recklessly and irresponsibly, and of course they and their countries cannot support the children they are bringing into the world, so the overflow is being dropped on our doorstep, and we are being forced to deal with it.
For years, for decades, actually, the left has preached that our First World lifestyle is evil. Now, with the belief that we are on the 'Global Warming Eve of Destruction,' they preach more insistently than ever that we have to stop burning fossil fuels and living our generally wasteful and ecologically irresponsible way of life. Books like 'Small is Beautiful' and leftist films like 'Koyaanisqatsi' idealized the primitive lifestyle of Third World peoples and shamed us for living as we do. We should emulate the primitives, so the message implied, and "live simply that others may simply live." While there is a grain of good advice there, and no doubt simpler living would be healthier for all of us, it is just one more piece of hypocrisy from the left. Why do I say this? Because if they really, honestly believed what they say and preach, they would do all in their power to see that these 'noble savages' remained in their Third World Edens, living their 'small and beautiful' lifestyle. The last thing leftist and liberals should want, if man-made global warming is really occurring, is to bring as many as possible from the Third World to join in our First World lifestyle. Mass immigration to the West is, if anything, only accelerating global warming, as we add tens of millions of new consumers and more cars on the roads, meaning more emissions and more waste dumped in our environment. Does this make even an iota of sense? Of course it doesn't.
I might conclude that the global-warming, 'sky-is-falling' crowd don't really believe their own prophecies of looming disaster. I might wonder if they are cynically manufacturing panic about 'global warming' just to push their agenda.
However it may well be that they believe what they are saying; liberals and leftists have no problem holding many contradictory positions and professing illogical beliefs.
Why is it that they can't, or won't, see the deleterious role mass immigration is playing in their supposed global warming scenario?
I tend to be something of an agnostic on whether or not global warming is a long-term trend, whether it is irreversible, or whether it is merely part of the cycles in our climate that come and go. I tend to think the latter. However I suppose one could argue, as a conservative, that it would be better to prepare for the worst and to try to fend off any global warming which would tend to be disruptive of human society or destructive of human life. But then again, if global warming is happening, and if it is happening as rapidly as the doomsayers insist, is it even possible to stop it, much less to reverse it? Are we human beings really powerful enough to effect permanent changes in the earth's cycles by our relatively puny human efforts? And what could we realistically do, short of destroying all our modern technology and returning to a primitive lifestyle? How realistic would that be?
It might be a good thing in many ways, including from the perspective of improving the quality of our lives, to simplify the way we live, and return to living more as our ancestors did two or three generations ago. But can we, and would even returning to the horse-and-buggy days remove the environmental Sword of Damocles hanging over us?
I don't know that many leftists would sign on to such a program. I think their constant cries of 'repent! The time is at hand!' are mostly just secular versions of the warnings of the old prophets of the Bible. For many leftists and liberals, their politics are their religion, and although many of them scoff at Christian beliefs in heaven and hell, they very much believe that heaven and hell are here on earth.
In his 'Screwtape Letters', C.S. Lewis has his character, the devil's minion Screwtape, instructing the apprentice "Wormwood" on the devil's plans for humanity:
"...we want a man hagridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth...''
The idea was to make people believe that they had it in their power to attain heaven on earth or avert hell on earth.
This is the hubris of the liberal.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the left; we have the globalists, including transnational business interests, pushing for a one-world order, and the global warming scare is another tool they are employing to convince us that we must accept a powerful global government, along with a drop in our living standards, and the loss of our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. And people will accept these things, if they become convinced that it is necessary to avert the global warming hell.
''SYDNEY/LONDON (Reuters) - People switched off lights across the world on Saturday, dimming buildings, hotels, restaurants and bars to show concern at global warming.
Up to 30 million people were expected to switch off their lights for 60 minutes by the time "Earth Hour" -- which started at 8 p.m. in Suva in Fiji and Christchurch in New Zealand -- completed its cycle westwards.''
Are any of you observing 'Earth Hour' and turning off your lights at the designated time? Apparently we're supposed to turn off our lights at 8 o'clock local time, according to what I have heard.
This is typical liberal 'activism': a symbolic show with little of substance behind it. As if turning off our lights for 60 minutes would forestall this global warming doomsday that they keep prophesying.
It's not that I am one of those 'conservatives' who scorns concern for the environment just because of the liberal hysteria aboout it. It's true that the left and the liberals go overboard in their obsessing about Mother Earth, and it's true that much of their purported concern for the environment is limited to a kind of neo-Luddite hatred of our first-world lifestyle, mingled with a loathing for Big Business and all its works. However, having said that, I don't completely disregard environmental concerns; I think much of the damage to the environment is a result of overpopulation in most of the world, and of course 'most of the world' is taken up by the hallowed 'developing countries', who are for some reason held blameless when it comes to environmental damage. The best thing that could be done for the environment would be to stop all this reckless overpopulating, which is, after all, the main reason for this flood of immigration which threatens to overwhelm the entire Western world. Third World peoples keep breeding recklessly and irresponsibly, and of course they and their countries cannot support the children they are bringing into the world, so the overflow is being dropped on our doorstep, and we are being forced to deal with it.
For years, for decades, actually, the left has preached that our First World lifestyle is evil. Now, with the belief that we are on the 'Global Warming Eve of Destruction,' they preach more insistently than ever that we have to stop burning fossil fuels and living our generally wasteful and ecologically irresponsible way of life. Books like 'Small is Beautiful' and leftist films like 'Koyaanisqatsi' idealized the primitive lifestyle of Third World peoples and shamed us for living as we do. We should emulate the primitives, so the message implied, and "live simply that others may simply live." While there is a grain of good advice there, and no doubt simpler living would be healthier for all of us, it is just one more piece of hypocrisy from the left. Why do I say this? Because if they really, honestly believed what they say and preach, they would do all in their power to see that these 'noble savages' remained in their Third World Edens, living their 'small and beautiful' lifestyle. The last thing leftist and liberals should want, if man-made global warming is really occurring, is to bring as many as possible from the Third World to join in our First World lifestyle. Mass immigration to the West is, if anything, only accelerating global warming, as we add tens of millions of new consumers and more cars on the roads, meaning more emissions and more waste dumped in our environment. Does this make even an iota of sense? Of course it doesn't.
I might conclude that the global-warming, 'sky-is-falling' crowd don't really believe their own prophecies of looming disaster. I might wonder if they are cynically manufacturing panic about 'global warming' just to push their agenda.
However it may well be that they believe what they are saying; liberals and leftists have no problem holding many contradictory positions and professing illogical beliefs.
Why is it that they can't, or won't, see the deleterious role mass immigration is playing in their supposed global warming scenario?
I tend to be something of an agnostic on whether or not global warming is a long-term trend, whether it is irreversible, or whether it is merely part of the cycles in our climate that come and go. I tend to think the latter. However I suppose one could argue, as a conservative, that it would be better to prepare for the worst and to try to fend off any global warming which would tend to be disruptive of human society or destructive of human life. But then again, if global warming is happening, and if it is happening as rapidly as the doomsayers insist, is it even possible to stop it, much less to reverse it? Are we human beings really powerful enough to effect permanent changes in the earth's cycles by our relatively puny human efforts? And what could we realistically do, short of destroying all our modern technology and returning to a primitive lifestyle? How realistic would that be?
It might be a good thing in many ways, including from the perspective of improving the quality of our lives, to simplify the way we live, and return to living more as our ancestors did two or three generations ago. But can we, and would even returning to the horse-and-buggy days remove the environmental Sword of Damocles hanging over us?
I don't know that many leftists would sign on to such a program. I think their constant cries of 'repent! The time is at hand!' are mostly just secular versions of the warnings of the old prophets of the Bible. For many leftists and liberals, their politics are their religion, and although many of them scoff at Christian beliefs in heaven and hell, they very much believe that heaven and hell are here on earth.
In his 'Screwtape Letters', C.S. Lewis has his character, the devil's minion Screwtape, instructing the apprentice "Wormwood" on the devil's plans for humanity:
"...we want a man hagridden by the Future -- haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth...''
The idea was to make people believe that they had it in their power to attain heaven on earth or avert hell on earth.
This is the hubris of the liberal.
Unfortunately, it isn't just the left; we have the globalists, including transnational business interests, pushing for a one-world order, and the global warming scare is another tool they are employing to convince us that we must accept a powerful global government, along with a drop in our living standards, and the loss of our national sovereignty and personal freedoms. And people will accept these things, if they become convinced that it is necessary to avert the global warming hell.
Labels: Environmentalism, Global Warming, Globalism, Liberalism, Overpopulation
0 comment Saturday, June 28, 2014 | admin
This story appeared a few days ago:
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown�s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt�s call will come at this week�s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: "Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that "relentless" economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries. ''
So why, if the world would benefit more by reducing the population of the most developed countries, are we being forced to import tens of millions of people into these countries, while we are supposedly already overpopulated?
At least the article acknowledges the fact that overpopulation is a 'politically sensitive' problem, although nobody seems willing to discuss just why it is so, or why it must be so. It's politically sensitive only because the environmentalist left has made multiculturalism and 'diversity' sacred cows. Multiculturalism and diversity as unquestioned values demand mass immigration from Third World countries, the overpopulated countries of the global South, because the 'rich world' as the globalists call us of the Western nations, are apparently too White and too 'sterile' without imported diversity.
So now most Western countries are madly importing millions of 'diverse' people from backward nations in order to attain some unspecified level of 'diversity' and the strength that is said to reside therein. How many immigrants are enough, Mr. Porrit, or Mr. Brown? How much 'diversity' is sufficient?
And why is there no mention of curtailing immigration as the most obvious way of stopping runaway population growth? The stark fact is that almost all population growth in Western countries is due to immigration and/or to American-born 'diversity.' Almost none of it is ascribable to irresponsible reproduction by White citizens of those countries.
So how does the multiculturalist left propose to 'cut the population by 80 percent' without repatriating millions of people who do not belong in the United Kingdom and without stopping the insane policy of importing immigrants at a furious pace?
There are hundreds of reader comments following the article, and very few even mention immigration, much less repatriation or deportation. Does it not make sense to stop digging when you are in a deep hole?
But one commenter makes a valid though unsettling point:
Does anyone else find this to be a rather disturbing statement to come from an officer of a government that controls your health care?''
That's similar to a point that I brought up a few weeks ago in connection with an article about the new health care proposals by the administration which would put our electronic medical records into a government database, and provide for a government bureaucracy which would oversee patient care, and could potentially dictate to doctors the care and treatment they administer to all their patients.
Of course in any nationalized health care system there would be a necessity for rationing care at least to some extent, and does anyone doubt that people with chronic illnesses and especially the elderly would be deemed liabilities to the system? I am convinced that we would eventually see at least passive euthanasia, with older and chronically ill patients being simply warehoused without the treatment they might expect to receive in our present system.
If Porritt and the other leftists in the United Kingdom think that the population must be reduced drastically, and if they have shown that they consider immigration sacred, where else can the population be cut? Western countries already have widespread abortion, but even with the greatly reduced native-born White birth rates, Western countries are becoming overcrowded. Yet immigration must continue. It's because of bizarre and irrational behaviors like this that I occasionally say our elites have gone mad. Their actions make no earthly sense.
And what makes even less sense is how few average citizens even think about the insanity of the situation, and the utter incompetence -- or is it simply malevolence -- of the judases who sit in positions of power.
It has never made sense to me that the environmentalist left refuses to even question or mention the role played by mass immigration by high-birth-rate peoples into Western countries. I've posted pictures before of the mountains of trash left by illegals traipsing across the former borders in the Southwestern states.
There are so many environmental issues that are exacerbated by mass immigration of all varieties, but all these things go unexamined and unmentioned because the left does not want to criticize their protected minority groups. And yes, I have heard of the Sierra Club payoff made by a certain wealthy individual who stipulated that immigration not be opposed -- but the Sierra Club is just one such organization; what is keeping all the others from speaking out against mass immigration and the overpopulation it brings?
Are they all so enamored of immigration and multiculturalism that they are willing to sacrifice the environment they profess to love and protect? Or are they all so indoctrinated to believe that Whitey is the cause of all evil in the world, while minorities are poor lambs who can do no wrong? It would certainly seem so, but again, I can't find a way to understand their way of thinking.
It may be that Mother Nature or divine intervention will have to provide a way out of this dilemma; our so-called leaders obviously have no acceptable and morally sound answers to our problems. Their incompetence or willful malfeasance should, in a just world, see them removed from power, but that will not happen unless the populace comes to their collective senses.
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown�s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt�s call will come at this week�s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: "Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that "relentless" economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries. ''
So why, if the world would benefit more by reducing the population of the most developed countries, are we being forced to import tens of millions of people into these countries, while we are supposedly already overpopulated?
At least the article acknowledges the fact that overpopulation is a 'politically sensitive' problem, although nobody seems willing to discuss just why it is so, or why it must be so. It's politically sensitive only because the environmentalist left has made multiculturalism and 'diversity' sacred cows. Multiculturalism and diversity as unquestioned values demand mass immigration from Third World countries, the overpopulated countries of the global South, because the 'rich world' as the globalists call us of the Western nations, are apparently too White and too 'sterile' without imported diversity.
So now most Western countries are madly importing millions of 'diverse' people from backward nations in order to attain some unspecified level of 'diversity' and the strength that is said to reside therein. How many immigrants are enough, Mr. Porrit, or Mr. Brown? How much 'diversity' is sufficient?
And why is there no mention of curtailing immigration as the most obvious way of stopping runaway population growth? The stark fact is that almost all population growth in Western countries is due to immigration and/or to American-born 'diversity.' Almost none of it is ascribable to irresponsible reproduction by White citizens of those countries.
So how does the multiculturalist left propose to 'cut the population by 80 percent' without repatriating millions of people who do not belong in the United Kingdom and without stopping the insane policy of importing immigrants at a furious pace?
There are hundreds of reader comments following the article, and very few even mention immigration, much less repatriation or deportation. Does it not make sense to stop digging when you are in a deep hole?
But one commenter makes a valid though unsettling point:
Does anyone else find this to be a rather disturbing statement to come from an officer of a government that controls your health care?''
That's similar to a point that I brought up a few weeks ago in connection with an article about the new health care proposals by the administration which would put our electronic medical records into a government database, and provide for a government bureaucracy which would oversee patient care, and could potentially dictate to doctors the care and treatment they administer to all their patients.
Of course in any nationalized health care system there would be a necessity for rationing care at least to some extent, and does anyone doubt that people with chronic illnesses and especially the elderly would be deemed liabilities to the system? I am convinced that we would eventually see at least passive euthanasia, with older and chronically ill patients being simply warehoused without the treatment they might expect to receive in our present system.
If Porritt and the other leftists in the United Kingdom think that the population must be reduced drastically, and if they have shown that they consider immigration sacred, where else can the population be cut? Western countries already have widespread abortion, but even with the greatly reduced native-born White birth rates, Western countries are becoming overcrowded. Yet immigration must continue. It's because of bizarre and irrational behaviors like this that I occasionally say our elites have gone mad. Their actions make no earthly sense.
And what makes even less sense is how few average citizens even think about the insanity of the situation, and the utter incompetence -- or is it simply malevolence -- of the judases who sit in positions of power.
It has never made sense to me that the environmentalist left refuses to even question or mention the role played by mass immigration by high-birth-rate peoples into Western countries. I've posted pictures before of the mountains of trash left by illegals traipsing across the former borders in the Southwestern states.
There are so many environmental issues that are exacerbated by mass immigration of all varieties, but all these things go unexamined and unmentioned because the left does not want to criticize their protected minority groups. And yes, I have heard of the Sierra Club payoff made by a certain wealthy individual who stipulated that immigration not be opposed -- but the Sierra Club is just one such organization; what is keeping all the others from speaking out against mass immigration and the overpopulation it brings?
Are they all so enamored of immigration and multiculturalism that they are willing to sacrifice the environment they profess to love and protect? Or are they all so indoctrinated to believe that Whitey is the cause of all evil in the world, while minorities are poor lambs who can do no wrong? It would certainly seem so, but again, I can't find a way to understand their way of thinking.
It may be that Mother Nature or divine intervention will have to provide a way out of this dilemma; our so-called leaders obviously have no acceptable and morally sound answers to our problems. Their incompetence or willful malfeasance should, in a just world, see them removed from power, but that will not happen unless the populace comes to their collective senses.
Labels: Demographics, Diversity, Environmentalism, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Overpopulation, Race Replacement, United Kingdom