Andre Jute said:Quoted message said:environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.
Tom Sherman then opined:
Quoted message said:Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
has the business community, since most wars have been driven by business
interests.
A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.
We cannot count he cost of banning DDT: just the deaths from a one of
the many by-effects of banning DDT are uncountable; a total is
impossible to tally. DDT was the only effective control on the killer
malaria. Every year since DDT was banned, millions of the poorest
people on earth have been killed by malaria. Every year millions of
the poorest people on earth continue to be killed by malaria while
DDT, now declared innocent, remains banned for outdoor use. These tens
of millions, perhaps already hundreds of millions of deaths of poor
women and children, and their fathers and husbands, are the direct
result of banning DDT. Every environmentalist, whether or not he was
alive when this happened, is guilty of benefitting by the success of
the campaign to ban DDT, because the fear that campaign inspired in
politicians is one of the reasons politicians do not today clamp down
on the irrationality of the environmentalists. In short,
environmentalists today benefit by the frame of mind created through a
monstrous genocide for which only environmentalists stand in the dock.
Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that just the deaths from
malaria caused by the banning of DDT under environmental pressure
inspired by her book, makes Carson a greater mass murderer than Jossph
Stalin, Mao Ze-Dung and Pol Pot put together (hell, she makes Pol Pot,
who killed only a few million, look like a bit player).
Let me repeat, there was no known case of human cancer from DDT. None
has been proven since the banning of DDT. It was all a "What if..."
scare of the kind we're still seeing from the environmentalists.
Of course, DDT was more effective than anything else then available or
since invented against the common pests that destroy the crops grown
in the third world. Once DDT was banned, starvation was sure to
follow, and it was predicted at the time, and it was pointed out at
the time, that the deaths by starvation when the crops unprotected by
DDT were eaten by pests, would be directly traceable to the banning of
DDT by environmental hysteria. But by now, with the tens of millions
dead of malaria, what's another billion dead of starvation over the
years since DDT was banned? They change only the magnitude of the case
that the environmental movement is the largest mass murderer in human
history.
I think it entirely right that environmentalists should burn in
Purgatory for all eternity.
***
It would only a fraction of the costs of the totally inefficient Kyoto
Agreement to give all the world's poor clean water and primary health
care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive and
feed themselves.
It would cost one sixth of what, on hand of the Stern Report, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown will suggest to the world be spent on
fighting global warming (just when there has been no global warming
for a decade!), to give all the world's poor clean water and primary
health care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive
and feed themselves.
Now who really cares about the poor and the sick and the starving? Not
the environmentalists! They care about having the power to enforce
their irrational mob religion.
Stern, incidentally, proposes a carbon tax. It would, for instance, be
levied on the cargo-miles of foodstuffs imported into Europe from
those selfsame poor countries where the environmentatlists are already
committing a genocide by the continued ban on DDT.
Ask yourself how all this appears from a hut in the third world as to
parents listening to their children crying with hunger. Selfish is the
word that comes to mind, but it is really too small a word for a
genocide of the helpless by smug but powerful environmentalists.
*******
Let's look at that meretricious piece of [censored] from Tom Sherman again:
Quoted message said:Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
has the business community,
I"ve just demonstrated that environmentalists from the beginning were
the greatest mass murderers the world has ever seen, and to this day,
and for the foreseeable future, remain genocidally dangerous to the
poor and the voiceless.
Quoted message said:since most wars have been driven by business
interests.
Really? You should read a little history, Tom. The two largest and
most destructive wars in history were fought for the pride of two men,
Kaiser Wilhelm and Georges Clemenceau, who was already dead when the
war fought for his pride started.
World War One was fought because the German Kaiser wanted an empire as
glorious as that of his cousin Bertie, who was King of England. The
business interests in Germany were no fools: they knew that the
British Empire, though it glittered, cost more than it benefited the
nation (look it up -- modern studies have confirmed that the gut
instinct of the German mercantile classes was right: the British
Empire cost more to administer than it brought in). German business,
as represented by the Chancellor, was dead against the war, and you
may include Bertha von Krupp (or more precisely her hushand, who ran
her family's businesses) in that; they were very bitter that they were
not permitted to arm France fully before the Emperor forced the war.
World War Two became inevitable when that idiot Wilson, President of
the United States, rubbed wrong Lloyd George, Prime Minister of
England and a compromiser from way back, the one man Wilson had to
have onside for his dream of a lasting peace to be realized, in
consequence, Llloyd George, against the advice of his advisors (who
included such diverse men as Maynard Keynes, Jan Smuts -- who would
later write the Declaration of Human Rights the UN still uses, and the
arms merchant Basil Zaharoff), sided with Clemenceau, the Tiger of
France, when he wanted a peace that avenged French humiliation in
1870. That unmagnanimous peace guaranteed the second world war as the
magnanimity of the British in not demanding a destructive peace after
WW2, and the huge generosity of the Americans in making that peace
prosperous and democratic via the Marshall Plan, guaranteed the peace
we live in, which is of a length and a prosperity quite unknown in
human history.
Neither of these huge wars had anything to do with business interests;
in both cases the commercial interests were horrified at the wars.
*******
As for your remark the other day about many wars since WW2, so what?
They're little wars, police actions. Dictators at home, some listed
above, have killed more people every year for no reason at all than
were killed in all those declared wars. Joe Stalin in the 1920s had
between 3-6 million orphaned children running wild in the countryside
machine-gunned; he thought they might be infected with venereal
disease. The world hardly noticed. But you want to whine about a few
companies providing services when Iraq is forcibly democratized. I say
good for George Bush, and wonder why his dad didn't finish the job.
(Bill Clinton wanted to finish the job but was distracted by the
bother America's petty moralists blew up about Monica Lewinsky.) I
also say it is a damn good thing that the military is forced to
privatise services: without competition, the price of having the
military provide the same service would skyrocket. I just don't see
your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government. It's
leftie [censored], and you know it; if George Bush didn't go into Iran,
you'd now be whining that he was a coward who lets Saddam get away
with genocide.
*******
Try to look up from the saplings to the forest, Tom.
Andre Jute
Well-read