Carbon Eugenics: Genocide in the name of the environment is still genocide
TRANSCRIPT: The first person to stand up to any great evil is always the most courageous. To be the first one to call out any great injustice is to invite ridicule, scorn, even persecution. It is difficult to imagine today just how brave were the first slave owners to call for the abolition of slavery, the first men and women to advocate women's suffrage, the first activists to call for the end of Apartheid. In the end, their cause is recognized as just and these brave souls are lauded, often posthumously, as heroes. But in the beginning, no one wants to admit that they are a party, even unwittingly, to a great evil. The wildest injustices can be legitimized simply because they are popular.
Today, just such a popular injustice exists. It has been infused into our culture and taken up as a cause. It is fervently believed in and advocated with great passion and force, and to speak out against it is to risk persecution and scorn. But speak out against it we must.
The terrible injustice of our age has its roots in a most unlikely place: in the quaint villages and manicured gardens of the 19th century British gentry. Amongst that set lived one Francis Galton, a gentleman scientist who had investigated everything from meterorology to statistics. Shortly after his cousin, Charles Darwin, published his Origin of Species, Galton became fascinated with the idea that the "survival of the fittest" did not just take place between species, but within them. This idea became a pseudo-science, a study of the presumed racial characteristics of this group or that group with an aim to explaining why the various peoples of the world occupy the positions they do.
In order to confirm their pre-conceived notions of their own self-worth, Galton and his friends started a new field of inquiry called eugenics. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful because they were genetically superior, and it offered a simple solution for improving the lot of humanity: make sure that the affluent upper classes breed as much as possible (preferably within their own families, in order to preserve their superior stock), and make sure the lower classes breed as little as possible.
This junk science, pandering as it did to the most rabid the most racist the most elitist interests of the moneyed class, became universally accepted in the Western world within a generation. Soon, country after country had implemented laws to allow the government to sterilize those citizens it deemed to be "unfit."
The true horrors of this strain of thought came to light when the German eugenicists, based at the Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute , gave the Nazi regime an ideological excuse to take the idea to its logical conclusion. Many of the Germans who went along with the holocaust did so because they genuinely believed the scientists who were telling them that the Jews and Gypsies, the communists and homosexuals were genetically inferior and needed to be eliminated from the gene pool.
After World War II, when the full magnitude of the slaughter that had taken place in the name of eugenics began to become apparent, the eugenicist pseudoscientists scrambled to find a way to re-legitimize their racist and classist drivel. They wrote openly in the journals of their once-esteemed eugenics societies that they would now have to continue their studies and practices in a more covert fashion. Eugenics had to become crypto-eugenics.
This was accomplished in a number of ways. The British Eugenics Society, for one, merely changed its name to The Galton Institute. The American Eugenics Society morphed into the Population Council, a group set up by John D. Rockefeller III, where members continued to advocate the same policies for reducing the population of third world countries as they always had, only now they did so in the name of fighting "overpopulation" rather than fighting "bad genes."
Julian Huxley, brother of the famous writer, helped organize UNESCO in 1945. In the founding document of UNESCO entitled UNESCO: its philosophy and its purpose, he argues that one of the key aims of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization would be the re-legitimization of eugenics so the idea would once again become thinkable. He also went on to co-found the World Wildlife Fund with Nazi SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
Within a generation, science was once again ready to tell us why the only way to save humanity was to stop people from breeding: this time, the public was whipped into a furor not about Jews and Gypsies, but about carbon dioxide and environmental sustainability. The cover had changed, but the racist eugenicist text remained the same.
In the logic of the eugenicists, the meaning of human life is itself transformed. Instead of something valuable, something precious, something to be desired and nurtured, fought for and celebrated, humanity is re-imagined as a cancer, something inherently evil, the mere existence of which is a burden on the world. This, unsurprisingly, encapsulates the modern environmental movement's position almost perfectly: human life is no longer something to be treasured, but something to be measured in carbon and then reduced.
In the manmade global warming myth, humans are merely an obstacle to the proper functioning of nature. In the eugenicist fantasy, the earth is saved when people die. In both ideologies (if they really are separate) the ultimate genocide becomes thinkable.
Now the "leaders of the world" are meeting in Copenhagen to decide on the future of your world, of my world, of the world of our children and grandchildren. They are proposing a reorganization of the world economy. Punishing austerity is being urged in all corners. Groups of population control eugenicists are now arguing for carbon offsets to be used to stop the developing world from having children. The choir of madness is growing by the day and everything seems set to reach an intolerable crescendo.
And then, in the darkest hour, just as it seems the eugenicists are about to take over, along comes an insider—a hero—at the University of East Anglia to leak the emails and documents with which the entire manmade global warming myth is exposed and the carbon reduction agenda is deligitimized.
It is not always popular to stand against great injustice, but it is always right.
I'm uncertain as to what causes global warming but I feel confident that the globe is warming at this particular time. Perhaps in the near future it will cool again. The science is still undecided and in its infancy.
We have gone through periods of both warming and cooling over many centuries and this is another one of those periods.
I'm confident that trading carbon credits is a financial scam to move available monies from the poor to the filthy rich. This isn't new, they've done the same thing also for centuries.
However I do feel confident that we are over-populating the earth from certain perspectives. We are consuming more copper, lumber, tin and ores than we should and therefore depleting those resources. We're also consuming potable water faster than it can be replenished. The same is true for petroleum, the life-blood of western consumer societies.
I'm not sure what could be done or what should be done and don't have the answers.
Africa's population will double by 2050 to 2 billion from 1 billion. That presents significant problems for any humanitarian. People, especially children will suffer needlessly. African's are breeding at a rate of 5.3 children per family as opposed to western societies 2.1 children per family. As the result of ineffective resource distribution and regardless of the reason for it people, again especially children, will die from a lack of basic medical care, food and potable water.
We've thrown money at this problem for decades and it only gets worse. So what's the answer?
If we solve the problem of food distribution, which seems unlikely, what do we do about a lack of water and basic medical care for 2 billion people?
How do we address the expanding populations of third world countries? India will, over the coming ten years, use all of it's potable water. They are already experiencing a shortage in certain areas and have depleted other areas completely, so much so that crops aren't growing where they once did.
The United States is safe and always has been since we're able to purchase our way out of anticipated shortages of various resources. But that leaves emerging economies struggling to survive on limited resources without alternatives to replace what they're using. That means people are going to suffer regardless of what we in the west might do. Certain things we can't do. We can't replace water across continents which means the Indian continental area faces severe problems. We can't or at least we haven't replaced trees in Indonesia to any great degree and that country will soon be devoid of old growth forests permanently or at least for the 30-50 years it would take to regrow the area, if that were an implemented policy and to date it isn't.
There are problems related to dwindling resources and over-population that we'll have to address sooner or later.
If not, the earth is a total ecosystem capable of taking care of itself and it will. That means it will self-control via disease whether that be with diabetes, heart disease or a pandemic like illness. One way or another it will make the necessary adjustments to human populations unless we do something ourselves first.
Better that we take the necessary steps under controlled conditions then to allow the earth to solve the problem for us.
Comment by Jeff on December 13, 2009 at 7:55pm 
content and site copyright 12160.info
2007-2013 - all rights reserved.
unless otherwise noted
You need to be a member of 12160 to add comments!
Join 12160