Environmentalist Advocates Ending the Modern Economy

Posted on July 13th, 2009 by Lee Doren in Bureaucrash HQ

What does an entire generation that has never faced evil do to justify its own existence? It simply invents an evil and devotes its energy forcing everyone else to fight it. Of course, I’m talking about radical environmentalism.

Previous generations had clear struggles to overcome. The greatest generation overcame Nazism and Fascism. The civil rights movement fought draconian laws that excluded entire segments of the population from participating in the economy. Now, with Communism defeated, how does a citizen progress? Well, if you’re on the political Left, you simply fight a gas that all humans exhale and force millions to believe that our very existence on this Planet is evil. That way the struggle is endless because Utopia is the ultimate goal.

Sadly, many people around the world who consider themselves environmentalists never actually read, or listen to, the ideas spouted by those who currently lead the green movement. While, most people want clean air and water, few in the “compassionate majority” would support what the radical minority seeks to accomplish. In fact, I just read an editorial that articulates the minority viewpoint quite well, “Taking Shorter Showers Doesn’t Cut It: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change,” by Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. posted July 13, 2009.

Unlike Carol Browner and others currently in power, Jensen does not hide his true intentions; although his views still permeate the green profession. Notably, Jensen begins his editorial by equating environmentalism with the struggle against Nazism and Fascism:

Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

It takes someone with enormous intellectual depth to analogize the fight against throwing people in gas chambers to the fight against SUV exhaust. Like I said earlier, if there is no evil to fight, and no struggle to overcome, simply invent one. Also, it is rather disturbing that Jensen implicitly supports the Communist Revolution by identifying with those who fought the Tsars. History has demonstrated that the Communists made the Tsars look like saints despite the Tsarist oppression.

However, like the Reds of old, the Greens of today require everyone to support their cause. Jensen articulates this viewpoint quite well:

“[I]f we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.”

So, Jensen advocates remaking the entire economy, even calling electricity a “luxury.”  I am sure those siting in hospital beds around the country, who are alive today because of high-tech electrical machines, would appreciate knowing that environmentalists advocate limiting electricity.  Of course, Jensen’s argument is that  if we do not follow his lead, the apocalypse is on the horizon so those dying in hospitals should sacrifice for the good of humanity.

It has in all objective measures become a religion. But, unlike most religions, environmentalism is allowed in our public schools and citizens generally tolerate forced adherence to its tenets. Jensen concludes with the Nazi analogy to remove all doubt that he truly believes in the moral equivalence of Nazism and environmental degradation:

“The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.”

Overall, it is extremely important that the public is aware of environmentalism’s true goals. It is not about saving the Environment. Instead, it is about rapidly changing everyone’s way of life and scaling back the prosperity that took thousands of years to create.