Ecofascism is alive and well.
It is the height of irony (or maybe just hypocrisy) that the anti-fossil-fuel zealots equate climate crisis skeptics with Holocaust deniers. These zealots seem pretty adept at polishing their own fascist credentials:
Use police power to make sure everyone toes the party line? Check.
Self-appointed Planet Savior Al Gore recently told the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) annual meeting, “I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact. I hope these state attorney generals (sic) around the country will take some action on that.”
Those are my italics in that quote. Not only has the debate surrounding catastrophic anthropogenic climate change ended, what was hitherto a hypothesis is now legally indisputable fact, according to Obergrünenfuhrer Gore. Should I have placed an SEC-type disclaimer at the top of this blog?
Heidi Cullen, The Weather Channel’s self-styled “climate expert” (really, that’s her blog byline title) wrote in her TWC blog, “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the [American Meteorological Society] shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.”
On the other hand, break the law to attack those you have demonized as the enemy? Check.
At the same CGI meeting, Gore exhorted his younger disciples, “If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”
We have already seen instances of ecoterrorism, and here’s a broad appeal from a Nobel Prize-winning political figure exhorting youthful zealots to inflict at least economic damage to the demonized enemy. Will energy suppliers eventually face their own Kristallnacht?
Indoctrinate the very young, as they are pliable, convenient, and ubiquitous monitors of dissent? Check.
The New York Times recently reported on a growing trend of children hectoring their parents to hew to the Gospel According to Gore. The article refers to what experts say is “a growing army of ‘eco-kids’—steeped in environmentalism at school, in houses of worship, through scouting, and even via popular culture—who try to hold their parents accountable at home. Amid their pride in their children’s zeal for all things green, the grown-ups sometimes end up feeling like scofflaws under the watchful eye of the pint-size eco-police, whose demands grow ever greater, and more expensive. They pore over garbage bins in search of errant recyclables. They lobby for solar panels. And, in a generational about-face, they turn off the lights after their parents leave empty rooms.”
The Times article quotes a Natural Resources Defense Council spokeswoman as saying, “One of the fascinating things about children is that they don’t separate what you are doing from what you should be doing. Here’s this information about how we can help the environment, and kids are not able to rationalize it away the way that adults do.”
Yes, we certainly wouldn’t want our kids to “rationalize” imposing their beliefs on others. Read the Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/nyregion/10green.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
So where are the kids getting the party line? A lot of teachers are showing Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth in classrooms. Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn get banned by some school boards, and the cinematic Mein Kampf of ecofascism gets not just a pass but mandatory viewing in classrooms? Then again, films, unlike textbooks, are not chosen by school boards. Stage 1: Die grünen Jungvolk; Stage 2: Gore-Jugend.
Prepare a Final Solution? Check.
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who operates a weather technology and content business, reports that Aussie TV network Australian Broadcasting Corp. has created a website that helps kids calculate their carbon footprint through an interactive game that inflates a cartoon pig as the carbon tally mounts until it explodes into bloody bits: “When you’re done, click on the (skull and crossbones) to find out what age you should die at so you don’t use more than your fair share of Earth’s resources!”
Check it out at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/31/tv-network-tells-kids-when-their-carbon-footprint-says-they-should-die/
Maybe the ecofascists will eventually feel so guilty about their own carbon dioxide exhalations that they end up “drinking the Kool-Aid,” thereby leaving plenty of carbon footprint for the rest of us to share. (And my pig won’t explode and tell me I should have died 49 years ago).
Was that over the top? Or was it in keeping with a mindset that insists that the earth won’t recover from environmental damage until humanity has disappeared? Or that humanity is a cancer on the face of the earth? Or that the ongoing economic meltdown would be good for the environment because of its crippling effects on carbon-adding economic activity?
Is the Gospel According to Gore that extreme? It’s not as if there isn’t precedent in the environmental movement, which was launched with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the book that led to the nearly universal ban on widespread DDT spraying to control mosquito-borne malaria outbreaks.
Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health estimated in 2007 that “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children” in developing countries due to outbreaks of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases that were curbed by DDT spraying.
I guess the ecofascists would consider that earth-friendly “population control.”
