Welcome to GulfCoastNews.com
     GCN Political Analysis

The Green Gun Reloaded

U.N. Global Governance Is Being Advanced Through Three Neo-Socialist Tenants: The Precautionary Principle, Deep Ecology, And Globally Accepted Truth.

Part 7 of 8 (Part 1, Part 2Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7)

By Perry Hicks- Special to GulfCoastNews.com     7/14/10

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects ... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."-David Foreman, Founder of Earth First! President of Wildlands Project

Regardless of Al Gore's claims of consensus, there is very little science behind global warming. Their dire predictions are based on computer models that are woefully incomplete and, as we have seen from the Climategate emails, front loaded with manipulated data.

Indeed, the global warming predicting computer models are themselves loaded with operands (fudge factors) that force the resulting model in the direction the modeler wants making all such models suspicious.

The sun's output is assumed to be constant, and the impact of cloud formations, removal of pollution, and particulates in the atmosphere are poorly factored into the model's equations. The software engineering itself has been criticized as not meeting current industry standards.

Most simply put, these are predictions; models sculpted by their creators and nothing more.

Besides, no one can tell us just what temperature the planet should be. The Left starts with the presumption that warming is bad. But is that really so? When challenged on this question, the Left retrenches to the Precautionary Principle proclaiming that the ecological risk is too great to take a chance that global warming predictions might be wrong.

However, the Precautionary Principle isn't enough to cover the historic realities of the glacial periods, the little ice ages, and medieval warming period. To evade these “inconvenient truths,” the Left concocted a false climate history designed specifically to promote a draconian solution to a problem that can't be demonstrated to actually exist.

The resulting 1998 “hockey stick” climate history graph fraudulently depicts a stable average earth temperature prior to the mid to late 1800s. It was only when America and the western world turned to petroleum for fuel and lubrication that the graph's temperature line was drawn to turn sharply upward.

Oil Aid to Freedom

"Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go."-Dave Foreman, President Wildlands Project

Why late 1800s? With the discovery of vast oil resources within its borders, America began a transition away from wood and coal to petroleum. This began the clearing of coal and wood combustion particulates from the atmosphere. It also was the starting point for more efficient combustion processes that over time reduced toxic pollution from the air we breath.

While coal is also categorized as a fossil fuel, and began the revolution in safe and affordable travel, it is petroleum that has provided even the most modest citizens the means to travel wherever they desired; something that heretofore was the exclusive domain of the rich.

Accordingly, it should be no surprise that the Left wants to restrict the speed and distance individuals can travel.

The first attacks on oil and automobiles came in the form of mutually defeating safety and toxic emissions issues. However, the industry succeeded in dramatically increasing safety per vehicle mile traveled while simultaneously lowering toxic emissions.

Perfect hydrocarbon combustion results in nothing but CO2 and water. With toxic pollution coming under control, and combustion efficiency continuing to increase into previously thought unreachable levels, a new “pollutant” had to be found that could never be “cleansed” away.

The new pollutant had to be one that once established would enable the Left to curtail our modern lifestyle and could not be overcome through ever higher combustion efficiency and ever more efficient pollution controls.

Water could never be accepted as a “pollutant,” but “dirty” carbon might, even though it is the basic component of all known life on earth.

Thus, the Left has taken to demanding that our individual “carbon footprints” be reduced through a forced reduction in human activity and its attendant reduction in prosperity and therefore lifestyle.

Prosperity is impacted because the pace of commerce is slowed, consumer consumption is restricted to necessities, and both the speed and distance at which people travel is severely restricted.

The bonus for socialists in implementing these lifestyle rationing plans is control. Because socialist societies cannot muster sufficient resources to meet public demand, so reducing population and limiting demand provides cover for the socialist system's inherent failings.

The objectives to limiting human activity are to be initially met by shifting energy consumption away from oil to the so-called “renewables” of solar, wind, and geothermal power.

Most renewables lack the “energy density” sufficient to enable swift and affordable travel. Once individual self-sufficiency has been reduced to dependent levels, travel would be further regulated to allowing only those modes that could be facilitated through “appropriate levels of technology.”

Geothermal and harnessed ocean wave energy has massive energy density, but they lack mobility, thus requiring a transfer medium, such as batteries or water conversion to hydrogen.

Limiting travel, by the way, has the social “benefit” of impeding the spread of public dissent and therefore literal movement by the people toward counter-revolution.

Reducing levels of general wealth will inevitably require health care rationing. Thus, once a worker's usefulness to society had been expended, their life would be brought to an end through the bureaucratic delay, if not outright denial, of life extending therapies.

Eventually, those therapies will not be available.

This is the basis for vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's prediction of “death panels.”

In other words, modern life with its longevity and material abundance would be gone. Earth's population would be contracted to just a shadow of its present size through famine (caused by the curtailment of modern petroleum driven agriculture,) state control of health maintenance- not just health care- and compulsory restrictive reproductive policy. Occasional pandemic diseases can not be ruled out, either.

The resultant surplus land could then be cleared of any vestiges of former human presence and allowed to revert back to wilderness. Great cities would be dismantled and its inhabitants moved to new “sustainable” “human settlements,” as the U.N.'s Agenda 21 refers to human places of habitation.

There would be no private ownership of real property, no liberty of movement, and no freedom of speech. Manual labor would become common as energy consuming technology is either made prohibitively expensive or outlawed altogether.

Of course, a revelation exposing these policies would not set well with the general public so efforts must be made now to curtail resistance and even the organization of opposing political movements. Hence, the abolition of private ownership of weapons of any kind; knives, swords, dirks, guns, and rifles. It is also about the manipulation, monitoring, and even control over communication mediums.

Globally Accepted Truth

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched kind of life as paradise.”-Adolph Hitler

When President Barrack Hussein Obama complained of Americans having “too much information,” he was not speaking off the cuff. Neither was it a gaff. His statement was actually based on the central component of the United Nation's Eden Project, Globally Accepted Truth.

An over abundance of information provides individuals with such an array of facts that one's cognitive processes could be directed away from an officially desired conclusion. Hence, individuals exposed to “too much information” may become “confused” and harbor errant opinions on critical subjects.

Thus, thoughts questioning socialist austerity become possible threatening the state's control over an individual's expectations. This is why the Obama Administration is worried about the demise of newspapers as readers shift to the cornucopia of information available across the internet.

This is also the reason why there are “hate crimes.” It sets the precedent for society being able to punish an individual for the content of their thoughts.

If one were to sustain injuries from a physical assault, it would certainly be difficult to argue that those injuries were the result of “love.”

But even so, injuries are injuries. Why differentiate between motives of robbery, anger, or “hate” for the victim because of their race, ethnicity, sex, age, or anything else?

Because the naming of a hate crimes is highly subjective, the hate crime principle- thought crimes by definition- is being extended to even matters of the environment.

Recall former vice president Al Gore's criticism of global warming “deniers” and his insistence on the question of global warming having been settled by the consensus of “credible scientists.”

Then recall how the emails hacked from the U.K.'s University of East Anglia (Climategate) spoke of blocking publication of critical papers in peer review organs and denying data to critics for their analysis. Furthermore, these emails also reveal that they were amazed to find 11 year solar cycles to effect earth temperature!

Another email showed much concern how paleo data, tree rings, and even ice cores did not coincide with temperature models, and that by leaving off some data dramatically altered computational results. Other references are made to try to get different models into agreement.

Political timing was also a concern in another email urging the collection of names signing onto Global Warming regardless if they are published or even having Phds.

These are not objective scientists, they are revealed to be climate activists working toward a political accord to limit CO2 emissions.

East Anglica's Dr. Phil Jones even stated in one of his November 16, 1999 emails that he had used Dr. Michael Mann's trick of adding actual temp data to the computer model predictions in order to “hide the decline” in average global temperatures after 1981 and 1960.

Dr. Keith Briffa of East Anglia was concerned about not “muddying the waters” and presenting a very unified consensus to the U.N.'s IPCC.

Virginia is currently investigating Dr. Michael Mann, originator of the infamous hockey stick temperature graph, for fraud to receive research grants.

Climategate has shown that the far left establishment cannot afford to be challenged by the existence of inconvenient truths.

And speaking of inconvenient truths, Al Gore has made an untold fortune hustling “carbon credits” to industry.

Of course, global warming apologists would argue that failing to have empirical data to support their theory should be no obstacle to implementing the radical changes necessary to control carbon emissions.

The Precautionary Principle makes it crystal clear that extreme environmental measures are justified because we can never be 100 percent certain of anything, and since the consequences for global warming are so dire, we cannot afford to gamble that global warming predictions are wrong.

However, this is not the bedrock foundation that the Left would want the public to know is their true motivation; any pro-environmental action as justified, no matter how extreme, because human life to them has no special value.

Deep Ecology

"... The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

Deep Ecology is the foundation for all modern environmental movements. It is a philosophy that has established a set of “morals” and “ethics” by which mankind is diminished from its Old Testament state of having “dominion” over the earth and its animal population. The major Deep Ecology points are:

  • Humans have no greater intrinsic worth than animals, insects, and plants.

  • It is immoral for humans to consume resources above what is considered “vital”.

  • Human population must be reduced (through humane means, of course).

  • Western civilization must be remade ideologically, economically, and technically.

These ethics and morals driving these arguments for extreme action are based purely on emotion. The proponents of deep ecology have philosophical roots back to the romantics and transcendentalists of the 19th Century.

Transcendentalists desired to go beyond, or “transcend”, the art, literature, and philosophy of the time. Their mechanism for “transcending” was intuition. The one of the transcendentalists founders, Ralph Waldo Emerson, refused to be “tyrannized by the blatancy of the facts and found spiritual certainty in the subtle intuition of the beyond.”

One can just hear the wind chimes tinkling.

If facts can be “blatant,” then transcendentalists would make for perfectly useful idiots, as Lenin is attributed to have coined the phrase. To the useful, facts have only limited value compared to what can be felt.

In other words, the gullible people could be made to believe almost anything and facts to the contrary would only get in the way.

Transcendentalists have roots going back to New England Unitarianism and can be considered an American response to European romanticism

Transcendentalism was a logical response to romanticism in that America had, as Edgar Allen Poe once expressed it, no lost “grandeur, gloom, and glory” to idealize. Transcendentalism was essentially a protest of the then cultural state of America.

Transcendentalism as a movement embodying such small numbers that it could never be recognized as an organized religion. Eventually, it transcended Unitarian Christianity altogether and though it remained spiritual by nature, transcendentalism is recognized today as “only” an important philosophy.

It should be noted that romanticism rejected Puritan notions of sexual morality. Partly for this loosening of morals and the emergence of industrialization and technology, the early 19th century is credited as being the birth of the modern age.

This the glue that holds socialists to true believing environmentalists; the rejection of Christianity and its morality based self-control; the transcendental sense of social justice and its involvement in both the women’s rights and abolitionist movements.

To the Religious Right's chagrin, the Republican Party has never been free of transcendental influence. It was founded on it.

Nature Worship

Environmentalists have often been accused of forcing their religion on others and there is good and blatant evidence to support this view. Buying into deep ecology, this new transcendental religion of nature worship idolizes nature as opposed to humanity; regardless of nominal claims otherwise, humans are actually denied to be a part of nature; mankind's exaltation of itself results in the denial of equal rights to all things in the natural world be they animate or inanimate.

Thus, land not only has “rights” over those of its owner, the concept of private ownership is repudiated altogether. This turn to socialism has tarnished the once shining conservationist image.

Where conservationists used rational facts and figures in their efforts to save forests, meadows, rivers, lakes, ponds, and wildlife, they also used emotion; preserving our resources was simply the right thing to do.

Note that the Earth is personified by some environmentalists and given the name “Gaia,” the Greek goddess who was mother of the Titans of the legendary Golden Age of Mythology.

Politics and politicians were always necessary accessories to achieve these ends, but the spiritual side gave the movement its element of purity. Conservationism wasn’t just wrapped in the American Flag; it was veritably robed in nobility.

No one can identify the point in time when conservationism made the change to environmentalism. There is no line of demarcation. The change came at different times to different organizations (or individuals.) However, the 1940s appear to be the era when attitudes began to change.

For example, whereas the Sierra Club was founded in part to make the Sierra Madre “accessible”, and had worked for several decades to this end, by the 1940s, it was adopting the view that accessibility was actually an endangerment to the Sierras.

After some debate, “accessible” was dropped from the club’s mission statement in favor of “preservation” and by the early 1950s, the Sierra Club was no longer building trails through the mountains. Instead, it was opposing the construction of wilderness roads.

By the late 1960s, most of the old conservationist philosophy had become obsolete. The automobile enabled great numbers of visitors to engage the great outdoors. The threat of nuclear war had further galvanized a core of disaffected left wing intellectuals against both America’s political institutions and her growing reliance on technology.

A combination of Civil Rights and the Vietnam War swelled the Left's ranks with a huge number of disaffected young people. This general opposition to traditional authority spread world wide.

Once it is understood how socialist politics and the new environmentalist religion have influenced each other, seemingly scatter-brained environmental arguments resolve into perfect unity. Consider the following:

  • It is preferable for forests to burn rather than have wood supplied for human use.

  • Sources of cheap energy supports robust economic (read human) activity so all forms of cheap energy must be suppressed. Renewable energy is never cheap.

  • Efficient western farming methods must be discredited. Ignore concerns of global famine because the population must be drastically reduced, anyway. (Note that starving African populations have been told not to eat American bio-engineered “franken-foods.”)

  • Prosperous but gullible western democracies must be made to feel guilty about their “obscene” levels of consumption. (Note efforts to dumb down public school curriculum and the extensive efforts to discredit home schooling.)

  • Impoverished third world countries are made to look like victims of the voracious western appetite for raw materials and cheap manufactured goods- even though their poverty is largely due to governmental corruption and/or civil infighting.   

  • All means of extracting natural resources must be made so expensive that inefficient and otherwise unnecessary recycling becomes economically viable.

  • All forms of efficient power generation must be curtailed for the same reason; make all human activity so expensive that economics dictate a reduction. To this end, a world economic depression would be “good”.

  • Global pollution must be blamed on the western democracies, particularly the United States. Ignore western successes in reducing long recognized pollution and find a new pollutant that would be very expensive or, preferably, impossible to clean up (CO2).

  • Redistribute wealth by crippling industrialized economies while leaving third world economies unencumbered by environmental regulations. To this end, global governance with law enforcement and taxation powers must come into being.

  • Individual means of transportation (i.e. cars and trucks) must be eliminated.

  • Western standards of living must be drastically reduced; subsistence level is preferred.

  • Individual property rights must be substantively impaired if not curtailed.

  • All modes of information distribution must be controlled.

  • Dissenters must be demonized so that the general public will take no heed of them.

  • Potential resistance, particularly by force, must be neutralized (gun control).

As the above list demonstrates, liberty and social-environmentalism are mutually exclusive.

If the environmentalists can be shown to have been hiding the truth, why could they not be held liable, for example, in the loss of life and property in forest fires? In Part 8, the final installment of this series, we will explore the legal consequences to promoting radical environmentalism.


Additional Information:

About the Author.....

Perry Hicks is the senior writer and Washington correspondent for GCN. He is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel. Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics. Perry is a frequent contributor to GCN writing on stories of national importance with local interests. His articles can be found in the GCN Archive.

Contact the Author: arielsquarefour@hotmail.com

Welcome to GulfCoastNews.com