State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

V. Environmentalism?

CHAPTER V

ENVIRONMENTALISM?

 

“The common enemy of Humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.  All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

                -The Club of Rome, official consultants to the United Nations

                Before entering into the topic of environmentalism, in order to avoid confusion, it is necessary to define exactly what we are analyzing.  Most environmentalists or environmentally friendly people are simply those who want to do what is right.  In Genesis 2: 15 the Lord gave to man the stewardship of the earth.  To be a wise steward, I believe would include respecting the gift and taking care of it.  Making wise use of our resources will not only save us money, but help lower the costs of these resources for those who are in need.  This ‘grass roots’ environmentalism is a beneficial movement for the earth, and our society.    There are, however, those who will take a good thing and try to use the sentiment created to push their own purposes and agendas.  For this reason, and for the defense of true environmentalism, it is important to look at the Global Elitist environmental groups.

                Much writing has been spent on history as seen by Quigley, as well as Skousen and other persons.  Such is necessary to understand the present.  We have learned of the elitist families that work together to bring about change in the world.  We have learned that they would like to govern the world, and to some extent they have been successful.  We have learned that they had embraced “social justice” or “economic justice.”  We have learned that they have created front groups to help push their agenda into the mainstream and government.  We have seen that they use propaganda, especially in the media to move people to their ideas.  Quigley published his book in 1966, so much is not covered, but he does give us enough to spot the Globalist Elite in modern movements.  Quigley writes:

                “Looking back, it is now clear that the first generation of the twentieth century, from about 1895 to 1939, was a long period of transition from the nineteenth-century world to a totally different world of the twentieth century.  Some of these changes are obvious:  a shift from a period of democracy to an age of experts; from a world dominated by Europe, and even by Britain, to a world divided into three great blocs; from a world in which man still lived, as he had for a million years, surrounded by nature, to a situation where nature is dominated, transformed and, in a sense, totally destroyed by man; from a system where man’s greatest problems were the material ones of man’s helplessness in the face of the natural threats of disease, starvation, and the unpredictability of natural catastrophes to the totally different system of the 1960’s and 1970’s where THE GREATEST THREAT TO MAN IS MAN HIMSELF…” (Page 831, emphasis added)

                Quigley is either a prophet or he had some information about the ideas that were going to be pushed.  In the mid-sixties when he wrote his book, while there was an environmental movement, it was in its infancy.  The idea that man would totally destroy nature and himself was hardly obvious at that point, but was brought to the public largely by the Club of Rome in 1972 with its book ‘The Limits to Growth’.   The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 and is a group of elitists ranging from European Royalty, to American businessmen, to Far Eastern spiritual leaders.  A look at their website reveals that it is globalist (pushing for world governance), pushing for international economic/social/environmental justice.  Within its web of groups (Club of Rome, Club of Madrid, and Club of Budapest, all founded by members of the Club of Rome, involved in joint meetings, etc.) are found Rockefellers and Rothchilds, many United Nations leaders (including Maurice Strong), Rhodes Scholars, billionaires such as Ted Turner (CNN founder), and George Soros, political globalist elites such as Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and entertainment celebrities the likes of Bono, Peter Gabriel, and Robert Redford.  The list is long and surprising.  David Rockefeller was a past executive member.  Maurice Strong (see Canadian Club of Rome membership) is an important member as he was Secretary General of the U. N. in the 1970s and the first director of the U. N. Environment Programme.  He served in these and other important capacities in the U. N. until stepping down due to the Oil for Food scandal with Iraq in the 2000s.

                It is not the intent to try and prove that the Global Environmental movement is directly controlled by the Rhodes/Milner Roundtable groups or the International Bankers.  It is intended to show that many of these people are influential in the Global Environmental movement, that much of its funding comes from these people, and that the basic thought process and goals are the same.

               In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote the book ‘Silent Spring’.  In her book she argued against the use of DDT, a chemical that is harmful to the mosquitoes that cause malaria and yellow fever.  At the time, the anti-DDT group claimed that it caused egg shell thinning in birds and possibly cancer in humans and other animals, among other possible effects.  The press and Hollywood went after DDT relentlessly, until in 1972, the EPA banned it in the United States.  Worldwide bans from UN agencies, including the World Health Organization were soon to follow.  To this day, many environmental groups still push for the ban to continue.  Science, however, has showed that the attacks were based on propaganda more than real science.  The egg shell thinning was due to a diet that was 80% calcium deficient in the test birds (American Council on Science and Health, ‘Facts Versus Fears’, Edition 3, June 1998).  Not one person has ever had a confirmed case of cancer from DDT, and it was used widely for decades without much caution.  People have tried to commit suicide by ingesting DDT, and failed.  Decades have also passed since the ban and nothing has formed.

               The environmental groups which still defend the ban argue that DDT does not decompose quickly and therefore stays in nature for a long time.  They feel that in the long term, use of DDT will create serious problems for the environment.  Those against the ban point out that no problem has ever been proven to anything in nature, except for the mosquitoes.  We will leave the fine details of the argument for the reader to study.  For a balanced view, though not greatly in depth in scientific studies, see:  www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/805839/posts.  For a list of scientific studies and less-balanced conclusions see:  www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html.  For fair balance and science see also: http//dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html.  (American Council on Science and Health).  Another interesting link on this is :  http://3billionandcounting.com/directornote.php 

               The results of the ban, however, have been horrific.  DDT has literally saved more lives than anything else in human history.  While DDT was being used, around 50,000 people died per year world-wide due to malaria.  When the ban came into effect, that number increased to 1 million deaths per year.  In 2006, after an estimated 30-40 million deaths, mostly children, the WHO decided to lift the ban.  Dr. Arata Kochi, in charge of the WHO’s malaria program stated, “In this field, politics usually comes first and science second.  We will now take a stand on the science and the data.”  Unfortunately for Dr. Kochi and others who would save these lives, the international environmental groups have convinced many local countries to uphold the ban.  The lack of money to fight the propaganda war for the other side leaves many in total ignorance of this modern slaughter.

A child sick with Malaria, and the areas most infected by the disease.

               In my opinion, the DDT ban is a murderous decision.  It is a conscious choice against the third world and its children.  Even worse, it is happening right now.  Many of us want to think that, after the death camps in World War II, society would never let these things happen.  But the reality is that it is happening right now, and we do nothing.  The disease and death are far from our comfortable lives.

               In a way this teaches us a lot about the opposing views of the world.  Those who oppose the ban view human life as the most important thing to protect.  Environmentalism for this group is about making a better world for the people.  Human life is more important than possible, unproven problems in nature.  This view is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are god given rights and governments are to protect these.  There is another view (the one supporting the ban) that man destroys and is therefore the enemy of nature and he must be controlled.  Much of our current policy is a mix of these views.  My view is that where liberty has been protected, technology has always increased faster than population or destruction.  Technology has allowed the world to support 7 billion people thus far, produce enough food to feed them (not that people have adequately chosen to do so), and still have thriving wildlife and vegetation.   In Doctrine and Covenants 104: 17 it reads:

“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare;  yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.”

                Quigley weighs in with the other view, this time talking about the problems in Latin America:

               “The inadequacy of health protection in Latin America is as startling as the inadequacy of education, but may not, in a wider frame, be so objectionable.  For if health were better protected, more people would survive, and the problems of scarce food and scarce jobs would have reached the explosive point long ago” (Page 1,111).

               It is certain that society is getting more complex.  The population of the earth is growing and there are many problems which result.  There is also more information and technology available to just about everyone.  Is the best model for governance the libertarian model of the past?  Will people use their liberty to be wise stewards of our natural resources and help their neighbors?  Are people capable of self education and self regulation and able to get along?  Or is the best model one of macro planning and reduced freedom? 

               The Apostle Paul taught, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1Thes. 5: 21).  Can we understand and hold fast to the good of environmentalism, while rejecting those who would use this very thing to propagandize a more sinister agenda?  In making these decisions, we must have knowledge to get the proper balance.  This is the purpose of this and the next couple of chapters.

               We’ll finish with some of our Global Environmental Elites thoughts:

“The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity.”         -United Nations Environment Program (‘The UNEP We Want, Pg. 4)

“The big threat to the planet is people:  There are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”                -Sir James Lovelock

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species returning throughout the world.”               -Dave Foreman, Co-Founder of Earth First!

“The earth has cancer and the cancer is man.”    -The Club of Rome

“The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”                       -The Club of Rome

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.  At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”        -United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.  All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”             -David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

Finally, the Canadian press (Globe and Mail) reported the following from Ted Turner at this year’s Cancun Climate Conference:

“Mr. Turner—a long-time advocate of population control—said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time.  He added that fertility rights could be sold so that the poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.”       (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ted-turner-urges-global-one-child-policy-to-save-planet/article1825977/)

For more information on the Elitist Green Agenda see: http://green-agenda.com/.

So, what do we need to know about climate science?

4 ResponsesLeave one →

  1. Troy B.

     /  April 18, 2011

    Wow!

    I agree with the idea that we need to be mindful of the environmental movement and be aware of the good (hold on to that) and the evil (discard that ). Although I am horrified by the quotes at the end and the results of what would happen if they were implemented, I understand why someone might feel this way if they lacked a knowledge of the gospel. However, I agree with their basic idea that we should limit consumption to sustainable levels. A level I think is obvious that Americans have far surpassed.

    The voracious consumerism of the United States and other industrial countries is mind-numbing. I understand the earth is full and there are resources for us, but I don’t know that 7, 8, 10, 15 billion people can life the life of an upper-class American. Does our Father in Heaven desire us to live the life of an upper-class American? Perhaps resource over- consumption is like obesity. Can a nation or culture suffer from ‘resource obesity’? And if so can this obesity cause a ‘lethargy of service’ or a ‘cancer of ingratitude’, etc.? I am of the opinion that the the answer to both of these questions is yes.

    Can the Club of Rome be right in its basic message, but be using that message to implement control and destroy freedom? And can we really assume that technology will always be there to save us? Won’t our attitudes be what really saves us? Won’t we be ‘saved’ when we actually adopt a mentality that is proactive instead of building better tools to reactively address the issue?

    Reply
    • Brinton

       /  April 18, 2011

      These are some great comments, ideas, and questions. I would like to see a broad discussion on many of these to increase my personal understanding, if not that of everyone involved. For now, I will toss out some quick answers and more questions to see if we understand each other. Does our Father in Heaven desire us to live the life of an upper-class American? This alone is a complex question and could be a great discussion topic. I would love everyone’s perspective. Looking in the scriptures, and by my current understanding (I reserve the right to be wrong at any time), they seem to be summed up best in Jacob 2: 18-19.
      “But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good-to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.”
      It seems to me, that if we obtain first a hope in Christ, then God wants us to live whatever life we may choose. He doesn’t say we need to seek them, but also says he will bless us with them, if we seek them. He does seem very concerned about what we do with our riches–we should do good with them. I will not judge another, but invite anyone to look at his or her own life as to how well s/he is following these commandments.

      This is not to say that, as a nation, consumerism is not a huge problem. Our standard of living is definitely artificially high. Chapter X deals with the Pluralist Economy and the unsustainability thereof. In a nutshell, I believe that our debts (public and private) are a good measurement of our economic obesity or ‘cancer of ingratitude’. So, in answer to the next couple questions, I agree the answer is yes.

      Can the Club of Rome be right, but doing things for the wrong reasons? The answer I believe could be yes, and also could be no. Is 1,000,000 a high number? If we are talking about a million atoms, it would be seemingly small. A million light years is seemingly a huge distance. In measuring consumption, we almost always lack the defining part of the equation. We hear seemingly huge numbers as to how much oil the United States uses in a day, but so far as I have been able to find, we lack reliable information as to how much oil there is. Each group interprets the numbers according to their own political agenda, rather than in an underlying truthful way. I believe at least some members of the Club of Rome are doing things for the wrong reasons. I also believe their whole paradigm of control is wrong.

      My questions: If consumption is to be limited to sustainable levels, first what are sustainable levels? Second, who is to decide what these levels are? And third, How are they to be limited? I will propose that the free market (not our current manipulated market) would be the best form of control, as it protects everyone’s freedom and encourages innovation as resources become more scarce. If there is a shortage, the price automatically goes up and innovators start thinking. If there is no shortage, we don’t lose time or sleep worrying about it. Michael Crichton (scientist, author of Jurassic Park) gave a great example of this suggesting that if in the late 1800’s they worried about the biggest problem 100 years off, they would have been thinking about what to do with all the horse crap that would be all over with an exponential rise in population.

      Can we assume that technology will always be there to save us? My pointing out that technology has saved us in the past is not a guarantee that it will in the future. I believe that Christ is the only true savior and that if we follow his principles we have no need to fear. In the past, I believe he has blessed us with the technology which has kept the world going. Many C of R members were predicting doom by the 1980s if we didn’t give up our freedoms. My personal belief is that Christ will save us however he desires, I simply point out the gain in technology to help us have faith that he will do so. I also believe that God has much more technology than we do and could well reveal many more things to help us.

      In answer to the final question, I believe a proactive mentality is one of committing to gospel principles and having faith in the Lord. It requires a lot of faith to leave things in his hands, but in my experience, those who would have a comprehensive planning model for the world seem to want to destroy the purpose of the earth (agency and learning) to give us the security of their plans which focus on problems that may or may not actually be problems. I will stop here for time, but I am interested in following this discussion much more to satisfy my understanding and curiosity. I also believe there are many more questions raised here and many more perspectives would be a great addition.

      Reply
      • Brinton

         /  December 14, 2011

        A story I ran into which deals with how much oil we may have and how much we are using.
        http://sppiblog.org/news/the-rp-ratio#more-6608

        Reply
      • Amen to that.a0 It has always tcursk me as interesting that most secular environmentalists and park rangersa0believe in evolution and that humans are just a higher form of animal, and yet they refuse to accept the natual tendencies of humans.a0 Somehow they believe humans can use their rationality to change their natural behavior whereas they never expect that of other animals.a0 Why don’t we humans get the same pass as the bears and the chipmonks?a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0 If the non-use of DDT had killed a bunch of elephants that policy would have been changed quickly, but knock off 65,000 humans well they should change their behavior themselves.

        Reply

Leave a Reply