Those Friendly Radical Greens Are At It Again

Over the years some of the more extreme green groups have been willing to use violence, coercion and intimidation to achieve their aims. Groups such as Earth First! have made use of “eco-terrorism” to stop what they regard as attacks on planet earth. Property has been damaged and lives lost as a result.

A recent example here in Australia shows that these extremist groups are still alive and well. It seems that the extremist Earth Liberation Front secretly visited the Melbourne home of Hazelwood power station boss Graeme York and hand-delivered a menacing letter.

The letter said this: “The irreplaceable and precious eco-systems of this Earth are worth much more than your manicured lawn, expensive car and opulent suburban house. Your property will not remain safe so long as Hazelwood continues to pollute at such an inexcusable level, swallow millions of litres of fresh water every hour and cough out hydrochloric and nitrogen acids in return.”

One press account says this: “The extremist group has a record of following up on threats in the US, where it is suspected of torching dozens of homes, car yards and timber yards. A police source said delivering the letter to Mr York’s home was a form of intimidation, much more menacing than posting it to his office. ‘It’s saying: “We know where you live. We know your car. We know you’ve got a family”,’ the source said. Details of the letter are posted on the eco-terrorists’ website.”

Threatening stuff indeed, but as I already mentioned, this sort of activity is not new. Radical groups employing radical tactics and menacing rhetoric have been around for some time now. And even “respectable” voices have come out with some pretty outlandish statements. Consider a few representative quotes from some of these radicals:

Back in 1953 Bertrand Russell said this: “At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars…. War … has hitherto been disappointing in this respect … but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full…. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it?”

In 1988 Prince Philip made this creepy remark: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” And in 1991 the famous environmentalist Jacques Cousteau said, “This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

Or what about the 1983 words of Carl Amery, founding member of the German Green Party?: “We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.”

Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace, once said, “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.” Equally gruesome is John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

It is clear from these quotes that mankind is viewed as the enemy by these radical greenies. In case you are not yet convinced, two last quotes. Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation, put it this way: “The world has cancer, and that cancer is man.” And Dr Lamont Cole, Professor of Ecology, Cornell University had this delightful thought: “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”

These guys are simply human-hating humanitarians. They love the planet so much that they think that in order to save it, they must hate humans. And many of these are powerful and influential thinkers, not just fringe nut cakes.

To illustrate where all this is heading, there is a clever and biting article in the current (June) issue of Quadrant by Michael Kile. He suggests that we look to previous cultures in their solutions to environmental degradation. He begins his article with these words:

“Climate modelling of new data from the Aztec Codex Cihuacoatl has identified a relationship with important implications for global warming mitigation. The research suggests a strong causal pathway exists between climate change and Aztec rituals of ‘nourishing the gods’ with blood sacrifice.

“The evidence supports a revival of (humane) human sacrifice (HHS) as a mechanism for retarding environmental degradation and reducing dangerous climate change. HHS also would improve crop yields by allowing more effective control of surface temperature and rainfall; create anthropogenic biochar for soil enhancement and long-term carbon enrichment, especially in tropical environments with low-carbon sequestration capacity and depleted ferrasol and acrisol zones; and reduce population growth rates as the Earth’s carrying capacity comes under further pressure this century.”

Hmmm, those folks might have been on to something there. Why didn’t we think of it? A bit of child sacrifice to save the environment. Of course some already have: many radical greens argue for abortion to keep population levels down, in order to help the planet.

Still, we might have something to learn from the Aztecs. As Kile concludes, “Human sacrifice is clearly a potent forcing agent in climate equilibration. Furthermore, analysis of the climate record suggests its decline has been a key driver of rising global temperatures. The Aztec (and other) priests were right. Only sacrifice will ensure humankind’s survival….

“The threat of climate change is real. A long period of dangerous solar irradiance is inevitable without decisive action. Humankind has angered Sol for too long. The precautionary principle justifies reviving (humane) human sacrifice (HHS). It would be a wise exercise in risk management. To be climate-change-ready, national and global mitigation strategies should include HSS commitments, based on national population growth projections.

“In Australia, the government should offer generous grants to HHS dependants; issue free (securitised) sacrificial credits to working families; create a new Order of the Bleeding Heart; and restructure the now redundant carbon emissions trading scheme as the Human Pollution Reduction Scheme. These initiatives would send a strong message to the world—and to all Cihuacoatl sceptics and Huitzilopochtli deniers—that this country is serious about climate change.”

Gee, maybe Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front, and other radical groups are modern day reincarnations of the Aztecs. With such passionate concern for the earth, and such passionate dislike of mankind, such a possibility may not be all that far-fetched.,21985,25635805-661,00.html

[1117 words]

14 Replies to “Those Friendly Radical Greens Are At It Again”

  1. Francis Schaeffer says that when we cease to acknowledge a personal god we become pantheists or believers in Pan-everythingism: “Thus to the pantheist, the final wrong or tension is the failure to accept your impersonality. If you look at those places in the East where pantheism has worked itself out consistently you will find that the final wrong in man, the final Karma, if you will, is the fact that he will not accept his impersonality. In other words, he will not accept who he is…”

    “In the Hindu pan-everything’s there is a high development of the concept that there is no ultimate difference between cruelty and no cruelty. This can be seen clearly in the person of Kali. In the Hindu representation of God, there is always a feminine figure.”

    The Green party in Britain, apart from having Peter Tatchell in its ranks, has as its leader, Caroline Lucas. Though married with two children, she is clearly a homophile in the philosophical sense, and which, if looks are anything to go by, could lead to eventual and inevitable gender confusion.

    David Skinner, UK

  2. Mr Kile’s suggestion actually deserves some serious merit.

    Note how his suggestion satisfies the key characteristics of an environmental strategy.

    It’s drastic and not fully thought out

    It uses scientific sounding words,

    Yet we feel a bit more spiritual for following it.

    And, most imprtantly, someone else pays the price for any action taken.

    All the boxes are ticked. I think this will get taken up.

    If only we could train cute pandas or something to wield the knife then they could be part of the logo and it would sell.

    Michael Hutton, Ariah Park

  3. Very well done, Bill, in presenting again the inhuman utterances of very powerful persons over a signifiicant period. Thanks!
    Gerard Flood

  4. If these nut cases believe that mankind is a menace to the earth and consequently should be eliminated, why don’t they lead by example?
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  5. These guys are simply human-hating humanitarians.

    I think that may be a tautology. I believe the reality is that “humanitarian” = “human-hating”

    At least GK Chesterton noted this in “Orthodoxy.”

    Louise Le Mottee, Hobart

  6. At the risk of sounding slightly ‘spiritual’, may I add a thought regarding the driving force of all this anti-life nonsense – namely, Satan. If the number of his forces of rebellious angels are finite (which I believe they are), then it stands to reason that the more people there are on earth, the more thinly stretched his resources will be. Thus, it makes sense that the less people there are in the world, the more able Satan is to influence and exert control over them, through the activities of demons.
    Danny Polglase

  7. Yes, Louise, These guys are just human-hating humans (or should that be former-humans, since their humanity has all but gone (remember the un-man in C. S. Lewis’s novel?)). Indeed, David, nature/the earth is often the first destination of those who have ceased to believe in God (or in man). How naive that the ecofascists assume the Aztecs did child sacrifice becase they had ecology ideas (like their own)! they probably did it for very different reasons, and would think ecologists mad.
    John Thomas

  8. I agree Bill, they are anti human and are really ecological nazis. My wife and daughter make comments about my climate change skepticism, but I tell them that my issue is with the fascism that is behind it, as it is anti-person and anti God.
    Good to see Louise contributing over here.
    Wayne Pelling

  9. “One fire expert giving testimony said it was largely due to putting trees before people. So even less extreme green policies can cost lives and cause great ruin.”

    Didn’t we learn not to plant Austalian natives near the house from Ash Wednesday? Seems like someone forgot.

    Seems like a lot of things get forgot (sic)

    Max Stam

  10. Nice article Bill (although that seems to be the norm).

    I actually think there may be some merit to the HHS idea though. Get the eco-loons to step up and be the sacrifices in question. That way, we hedge out bets against placating and angry sun god, plus we have a way of getting rid of these morons.

    There could be merit in this. Plus they’d no doubt think it was a noble sacrifice. Although I suspect they would insist that someone else makes the sacrifice not them.

    As to the ELF idiots, perhaps this is why we need more liberal laws regarding weapons for home protection.

    Jason Rennie

  11. “Francis Schaeffer says that when we cease to acknowledge a personal god we become pantheists or believers in Pan-everythingism”

    Schaeffer was wrong. I am an agnostic who has mixed with non-believers all his life. None of the atheists or agnostics I knew were pantheists. Also I am well-read in atheist literature and have not observed a pattern of people turning away from belief in a personal god and becoming pantheists instead.

    The phrase “believers in Pan-everythingism” is obscure and may well be the psychobabble of an author pretending to understand what he does not. How many such believers did Schaeffer know of?

    John Snowden

  12. I have encountered these anti-Human sentiments of radical greens before, the usual babble about our species being a cancer on the face of Mother Earth. These people are ambitious in their delusion. Their deluded kin of earlier times were content with denouncing Jews, capitalists etc as the menace but now it is an entire species. What we can do is assiduously hang them with their own words. Same applies to the animal liberationist cranks.

    If Prince Philip thought there were too many people on the planet then he should have bred less. We could do with fewer vain, arrogant, unfaithful people like his family.

    John Snowden

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *