Nazi greens

R. Mark Musser’s book Nazi Oaks points out the chilling links between environmentalists and the Nazis in pre-war Germany. Even more chillingly it demonstrates that the mindset of radical environmentalists is astonishingly similar to the Nazi mindset.

Hitler’s National Socialist government was the greenest government in human history up to that point. It was not just that environmentalists joined the Nazi Party in huge numbers. The senior Nazis were almost without exception fanatical environmentalists. Hitler, Himmler, Rudolf Hess and Goering were all ardent greens.

The concept of lebensraum was essentially an environmentalist concept.

A recurring obsession among Nazis was what they saw as the problem of overpopulation. They believed cities were the source of much of the evil in the world. The German people would be much healthier if they returned to a rural existence. The problem with that is that quite obviously there were far too many Germans to make it a practical solution. That’s where the concept of lebensraum came in. If Poland and the Ukraine could be emptied of their existing populations there would be plenty of room to allow the majority of Germans to return to an idyllic rural existence.

Of course you have to some kind of pretext for removing those existing populations. That presented no problem. If Jews and Slavs were not really human, if they were subhuman (untermensch), then there could be no objection to removing them. And how to remove them? That was no real problem either. If these populations were subhuman there was no reason why they could not be used as slave labour. Those who were not suitable for such labour could simply be exterminated in the same way that a gamekeeper exterminates vermin. Those who were used as slave labour would be worked to death and within a few years they would have been effectively exterminated as well.

The Nazis also intended to thin out the population of Germany itself by eradicating all those who were deemed to be either useless or antisocial. Hence the Nazi euthanasia laws. Those who were unfit either physically or morally would be shipped off to the death camps.

It should be noted that the Nazi plans for reducing the population to what they considered to be an optimal size were not entirely based on race. Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were not the only ones shipped off to the death camps. Ideological enemies of the Nazis were also marked for extermination. This is a point we need to keep clearly in mind.

Modern greens have a chillingly similar view. They also see overpopulation as the biggest problem. If the planet is to be returned to the state of a pristine wilderness then obviously most of the human population will have to be removed. Whenever they are asked how this can possibly be achieved they became, not surprisingly, very evasive. It is fairly clear that they hope that abortion and euthanasia will do part of the job but when the objective is to remove 95% of the human population (and this is in line with the stated objectives of many green groups) then it’s obvious that more drastic measures will be needed.

The ground is already being prepared for those more drastic measures. There is a growing demand among environmentalists for climate change deniers to be imprisoned. It is not difficult to predict that the next step will be to strip climate change deniers of their civil and legal rights. Once that is done then the greens will have succeeded in isolating and dehumanising a large slice of the population, turning them in effect into untermensch.

And if climate change deniers are stripped of their rights, then surely it is only right and proper that anyone defined as being racist, sexist or homophobic should be accorded the same treatment. That’s where the environmentalists’ alliance with other extremist leftist groups such as gay activists and hardline feminists will prove to be very useful. There are lots of ideological enemies who can be turned into untermensch, just as the Nazis found lots of ideological enemies they could dehumanise in the same manner.

You might think this is all very far-fetched. And it is, except for one thing. It’s already beginning to happen. The groundwork has already been laid.

big business and the Cultural Left

This cover of Bloomberg Businessweek with its farrago of nonsense about global warming is a prime example of possibly the most frightening development of recent years, the way in which the business sector has caved in completely to the environmentalists and to the Cultural Left in general. Not only have they caved in, big business openly colludes with these leftist nutters in their efforts to trash our civilisation.

Big business has convinced itself that its best chance of survival is to surrender totally to the Cultural Marxists. This is a spectacular and tragic mistake. The Left has changed its tactics but its ultimate objective remains the same – absolute and unlimited state power. Free markets cannot survive long once the Left achieves this objective.

This error has also been made by neo-conservatives in general who believe they can allow the Cultural Left to win every battle in the Culture Wars. They believe, wrongly, that the Culture wars don’t matter. They fail to perceive that the Culture Wars were only even intended by the Left as the first step with the ultimate goal being socialism.

The business sector will learn the hard way that the Left never compromises. Every surrender to their demands is simply the prelude to further demands.

what I love about warmist true believers

What I really love about debating anthropogenic climate change with the warmist true believers is that you know that at some stage they’re going to spit the dummy and storm off in a huff. It’s just a matter of time. Like all leftists they cannot deal with the idea that you might disagree with them. If you disagree with them it must mean that you’re stupid or wicked or probably both.

You cannot debate with leftists. Whenever a leftist tells you they are willing to engage in a sensible debate you can be certain that a few minutes later they’ll be throwing a tantrum and taking their toys and going home. It’s amusing but rather depressing at the same time. They’re so insecure about their beliefs that any disagreement frightens and enrages them.

the green nazis’ plans for humanity

This is the chilling future the green nazis have in mind for us. We will be expected to embrace the idea of living lives of poverty, filth and misery, without heating and with very little food. And we will be expected to welcome this as a good thing. We must all reduce our “ecological footprint” to the level of the poorest nations on Earth. And the poor nations must resign themselves to remaining poor for ever, in the interests of “biodiversity.”

This is the agenda of the hardline eco-fascist World Wildlife Fund. What they are planning is nothing less  than the greatest crime against humanity in human history. This is evil on a scale the Nazis could only dream of. They intend to take away all hope from the human species. This is a hate crime, make no mistake about it.

no future for democracy if environmentalists get their way

Anyone naïve enough to think the Left believes in democracy should read Peter C. Glover’s recent article The Rise of Leftist Eco-Fascism. Prison or possibly even execution for global warming sceptics and an end to democracy – that’s the Green Left’s agenda.

It looks like the greenies will be re-opening Belsen soon. And no, I’m not joking. 

the Greens and world government

From Australia’s moonbat-in-chief, Greens leader Bob Brown, comes a proposal for a global parliament for the people of the Earth based on the principle of one person one vote one value.

Interesting idea. Now let’s do what Bob Brown hasn’t done, and think this through. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this global parliament will have 1,000 members. That’s probably unworkably large but it’s a nice round number.

Now how many representatives would Australia have? About three. The European Union would have about 71 and the US about 45. Canada would have five seats. Eco-friendly politically correct Sweden would have one. North America, Europe and Oceania combined would have fewer than 200 representatives. Add South America and you could say the western world would have around 240 seats. China would have 200 and India about 172. Based on the fact that there are around 1.62 billion Muslims in the world (some sources believe that to be a considerable under-estimate) we could expect to see around 231 Muslim representatives in the global parliament. Given the results of the elections in supposedly moderate Egypt it’s fairly safe to assume we’d see a solid bloc of hardline Islamists that would have at least 150 seats, possibly a good many more. They’d outnumber of the entire representation of the EU and the US combined.

How many seats would Green candidates win? In Australia the Greens could muster less than half the votes required to win a single seat. They might win one in ten of the EU seats. Say seven seats. Let’s be generous and double that.

OK, left-wing parties that are broadly supportive of the green agenda would win a lot more seats. They might win half of the western world’s 240 seats. Say 120.

Now given that the extremist environmentalist policies favoured by Bob Brown and his Green followers really only appeal to white midde-class university-educated westerners how much support could green proposals expect to get in a world parliament? Probably about 120 votes. If a green member of this earth parliament were to put forward the kinds of draconian environmental legislation that get Bob Brown excited, how many votes would they get? The answer of course would be, 120 at the most.

And what about the social causes so dear to the hearts of people like Bob Brown? Things like homosexual marriage. How may votes would that attract in a global parliament? I suspect that a proposal to make homosexuality a world-wide criminal offence would get more votes.

In fact a world parliament would be likely to be very hostile indeed to the leftist social agenda.

If I was a radical greenie or a radical leftist a “global parliament for the people of the Earth based on the principle of one person one vote one value” would be my worst nightmare. So the question is, is Bob Brown more deluded than we thought he was? Or is he really pushing for something quite different from the democratic world government he wants us to think he supports? Is it merely window dressing for a true agenda to dramatically increase the powers of the present unelected, unaccountable, corrupt, bureaucratic horror that is the UN?

when moonbats meet reality

The global warming scam is clearly unravelling, and unravelling fast. And as the global economy edges closer to collapse voters everywhere are becoming more focused on real issues and less interested in greenie fantasies.

Increasingly panicky governments are also starting to look askance at economy-destroying extremist green policies. Even the wishy-washy Cameron government in Britain is cutting back on funding for useless wind farms.

Leftist governments have a further problem. Growing unemployment and declining living standards, essential components of the green agenda, are likely to be increasingly resisted by unions. The Left might dream longingly of the destruction of the wicked capitalist system but leftist politicians will put their careers first. Even someone like Obama will put re-election before his yearning to destroy America.

Environmentalism is a luxury for wealthy guilt-ridden middle-class white people. When economic catastrophe looms the rest of the populace will choose jobs and schools and hospitals in preference to windmills and massively subsidised electric cars.

If political survival means ditching green policies we all know what choice politicians will make.

So what will be the response of the green extremists to all this? My prediction is that they will become much more angry, much more extreme and much more strident. They are also likely, like the Occupy Wall Street scum, to become increasingly violent.

easy ways to cut spending

There’s major concern throughout the western world at ballooning national debts and budget deficits. Australia has considerable problems in this area. And yet there are so many simple ways that government spending could be cut.

More than a billion dollars is spent each year on our Soviet-style state broadcasting network, the ABC. Why on earth are taxpayers funding this bloated dinosaur? Why not turn it into a subscription-only service so that the handful of people who want to watch the ABC can pay for the privilege? Or if they can find corporate sponsors silly enough to want to sponsor programs that nobody watches then it could be funded that way. The important thing is that the taxpayer should not be paying a cent towards its upkeep.

In 2010-11 the Australia Council merrily gave away $163 million in grants to the arts. If artists and artistic companies cannot survive without grants then clearly they are selling a product that the public does not want. It is simply a form of welfare for artists and other “creative” people. Here is another easy way for the government to save money. As for those “creative” people currently living off the taxpayer, they could always get real jobs.

Australia wastes around $250 million annually on programs to fight “climate change” and other environmentalist nonsense in Third World countries. Since it’s now obvious that man-made climate change is a fraud and a scam, there’s another $250 million that can be saved.

To be honest I’d question whether any of the $4.8 billion we give in “foreign aid” is actually worthwhile.

what greens really want

Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola has suggested that “the state should enact draconian measures of discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.” Climate change deniers are to be “re-educated” in eco-gulags. He also thinks big cities should be attacked by “some trans-national body like the UN” with nuclear weapons or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks” and is in favour of genocide.

Dr Eric R. Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas in Austin believes that 90% of the world’s population should be culled by means of the airborne ebola virus.

President Obama’s science advisor John P. Holdren is on record as advocating a world government that would reduce the world’s population through forced abortions and mass sterilisation.

What it all comes down to is that environmentalism is an ideology of hate.

Green Hell

Unlike most books on the subject of the great global warming hoax Steve Milloy’s Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them doesn’t focus on the scientific arguments which as he points out are well documented elsewhere. In any case man-made global warming has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s hardly necessary to labour the point. The science is in, and man-made global warming is not happening.

Milloy’s focus is on the real agenda behind the scam and behind environmentalism in general. Environmentalism of course has nothing to do with science. It’s a political ideology, and a terrifying one.

Milloy documents the outrageous intentions of the greens, an agenda that will wreck economies and lead to lower standards of living throughout the West. In The Third World the consequences will be even more devastating. Green opposition to desperately needed development projects will condemn much of the world’s population to permanent poverty and even death (don’t forget that the green-inspired ban on DVD cost the lives of millions)

He points out many of the less obvious dangers. We all know the greens want to make driving a car more expensive but their policies will also making less safe since the smaller cars they are pressing people to buy have dismal safety records. So it’s a green policy that is already costing lives.

And of course there’s the insane green energy policies. These policies are particularly tragic for Americans since the US has enormous reserves of coal, oil, natural gas and shale oil. There need be no energy crisis in the US for centuries or even millennia, except for the energy crisis the greens are deliberately engineering.

Even more worrying are the incredibly intrusive plans that environmentalists have up their sleeves. Green Big Brother wants to monitor the energy usages of individuals. They already have the technology to do so. So in what used to be the Land of the Free the government will be watching you to see how long you spend in the shower and whether you’ve left your TV set on standby.

It’s important to realise that this kind of intrusiveness, these restrictions on individual freedom, are not just a side-effect. They’re what it’s all about, the creation of an Orwellian socialist nanny state. Social control is the aim.

And forget any fantasies about profitable green industries. Green industries cannot survive without massive subsidisation from the taxpayer. Of course these policies will be irreparable economic damage which as far as radial environmentalists are concerned is a bonus. You can’t bring in the green socialist utopia unless you first destroy capitalism. Amazingly a huge number of large corporations have been browbeaten by the greens into supporting the destruction of their own industries.

A depressing book but Milloy ends on an upbeat note, reminding us that the very tactics used by the greens can often be used just as successfully by their opponents.

An excellent book and highly recommended to anyone who values freedom and western civilisation.