My goodness. Where to start? The Eco-priests of the New World religion that is environmentalism seem to be accelerating on all green cylinders. Let’s start with LifeSite’s recent report on the eco-fascists…
LONDON, May 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Environmental extremists are calling for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population to save the planet from global warming, saying the best “carbon offset” is no more carbon-dioxide emitting human beings.
A report published May 7 by the Optimum Population Trust declared that the best “carbon-offset strategy” was to reduce the number of human beings and thus defeat the “global warming” phenomenon.
“Population limitation should therefore be seen as the most cost-effective carbon offsetting strategy available to individuals and nations,” read the OPT report, A Population-Based Climate Strategy.
The report claims the climate cost of each new Briton over his lifetime equals roughly £30,000, and so projects the lifetime emission costs of 10 million new Britons by 2074 as over £300 billion. Therefore, the OPT recommends parents to invest in condoms (35 pence apiece) which would yield no children, but a “spectacular” climate savings of nine million per cent.
“The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has,” the report says. “The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population.”
“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child,” John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College in London told the Sunday Times adding parents ought consider the environment first when they have a child.
However, Britain has already been experiencing a considerably lower than replacement birthrate for some time and, according to a June 2006 BBC report, is expected to encounter a doubling of the proportion of the population over 65 by 2050.
The Sunday Times said the report indicated large families constitute an environmental misdemeanor or “eco-crime” as much as 4×4 SUV’s or failing to recycle. The Australian ran the headline “Children ‘Bad for Planet.”
No need to go on…you get the picture. Humanity is the problem. We are eco-criminals for having “too many kids”. Nevermind that the Western world is dying. The objective here is to have a lot of old, green people to euthanize themselves when the time comes.
Folks, there are few points to be made from this article. The first is that without Faith in God, this is what happens. We become paranoid about worshipping the earth and exterminating ourselves into oblivion. This is a demonic movement. And just how do these eco-fascists hope to implement their program? Well, besides the legal sticks like they have now in China, the instrumental means of whipping us into submission is to call upon the unholy trinity:
Practically speaking these are the instruments which will be called upon to implement the new earth worship.
But, wait! There’s more. If you happen to be religious and have some spiritual hangups about this new eco-religion, we even have an ark for you. Not that biblical ark, but an…drum roll please… EARTH ARK. Check it out here. It will host its own holy text, of course. The Ark will act as a “place of refuge for the Earth Charter document, an international peoples treaty for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century.”
Even that Nazi hunter, Elizabeth May, is getting in on some old time religion, delivering a guest sermon last Sunday at a United Church in London, Ontario:
“We have a moral obligation to our Lord and Father to ensure we don’t destroy the creation that was given to us. Through the power of our Lord and Jesus Christ, we can meet this moral obligation.”
Where was the hue and cry about mixing religion and politics from the Leftist Media in this country? No where of course. Liz is preaching some good ol’ time religion. And that religion is just fine by them. It’s the religion of the earth.
Lorne Gunter had it right when he remarked:
“You can bet that if a Conservative MP, no matter how low-profile or remotely located on the backbenches had said such a thing, in a church, regarding public policy, the usual sources such as the CBC and The Globe and Mail would have been all over it….Give May a free ride on her religiosity. That would be my preferred course. But then you have to be prepared to give everyone the same courtesy, including conservatives and Christians with views opposed to your own.”
If you had a lot of money and you owned a lot of property and you saw the need to consolidate that power and influence, what would you do? Well, the first thing you would recognize is that the world’s population is a threat to your wealth. That is why, by and large, the West has imposed its population control imperialism on developing nations. Too many people in these countries threatens their investments as a demand on the country’s resources necessitate changes in and possible loss of control.
Read about NSSM 200 and you will see what I mean.
NSSM 200 was the definitive interagency study of world population growth and its implications for United States global security, requested by President Nixon in 1974. The study was undertaken by the National Security Council, the CIA, the Defense, Agriculture and State Departments, and the Agency for International Development. Among its conclusions: “World population growth is widely recognized within the Government as a current danger of the highest magnitude calling for urgent measures…. There is a major risk of severe damage [from continued rapid population growth] to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.”
So, in other words, if you want to protect your wealth, you take a proactive role in curtailing population and carrying a big monetary stick (through the International Monetary Fund) to do it.
Seeing that abortion and even contraception is starting to wane, you need to recapture some of that momentum that kept the population in fear the first time (i.e. remember the “population bomb”?) so you invent a crisis that affects the common good. (Let’s face it, getting everyone on board is not going to happen when you tell them that you are really trying to do protect your net worth.)
So you need a crisis.
The environment is an issue affecting the common good, and of course, useful idiots in the scientific community – already imbued with the Malthusian ethic – are not in short supply. They will be our front guys and we’ll go and preach the gospel of Kyoto. When that doesn’t work, we’ll propose something that the majority of the population will buy into – limiting family size.
And so the public buys into it and we’re back behind the steering wheel, limiting family size around the world and keeping the resources to ourselves.