Nobody likes trees more than I do; nobody likes forests more than I do. And we’d be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoys the natural world more than I do. To be able to live in a forest has consumed my thoughts since I was 11 or 12 years old. To be able to live in a rainforest, with old growth trees being my front yard and back yard, would be the coolest fucking thing ever.
The forest has always felt like home to me. I have not noticed this attitude, this level of respect and reverence, in many people. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who wants to actually LIVE in a wild forest. I’ve spent time in the wilderness with people who liked camping, people who worked in the outdoors, and people who enjoy a stroll through a park with trees (hardly a wild forest, but whichever, it’s something, I guess). I’ve never met someone who likes forests as much as I do.
One might think that would make me an automatic “environmentalist,” but it doesn’t. Environmentalists do not live in forests. They may live in the country and have trees here and there, but this is not a wild landscape with trees as far as the eye can see, a landscape devoid of roads and powerlines and full of wildlife.
Frankly, Environmentalists have always seemed rather weird and scary to me. On the surface I seemed to have a lot in common with them—we both are against deforestion, pollution, and to some extent civilized development. I can certainly agree with any Greenpeace initiative that challenges large corporations hell-bent on stripping nature, obliterating it, and turning a profit from it.
Talk to some of them and they seem nearly religious about it all. I think that if you take a Nazi and a Hippy and fused them somehow, you’d get an Environmentalist. I’m sure most of them have good intentions, but some of them still seem a wee bit creepy…in the way a zealot, a follower of a cult, with strange rituals, might seem creepy.
Anyway, there is an important difference between the Environmentalist and someone like me:
My vision of an ideal human situation has us essentially back in the Stone Age, with some Iron Age trimming. Nomads, in teepees, following herds and hunting, fishing, and gathering.
Yeah. Obviously, that’s not going to happen—not unless some cataclysm utterly devastates the world and every civilized place is fucking demolished and wiped out, leaving semi-traditional Native peoples hanging on. And they decide to go back to the old ways.
Is this the world Environmentalists want? Is this what “sustainability” is all about? Is this how Environmentalists want to live?
What they want is closer to what is depicted in the movie, Logan’s Run. An utterly organized, ordered, and control-freak civilization in a bubble, with sissified populations unable to leave and brainwashed into a system in which you can only live to age thirty. That’s your life span. When you hit 30 you go into a circus and get killed, while people cheer.
I want to live in Nature; the Environmentalist lives in a city or town and wants to control or manage Nature, and control all those who enter it or do not enter it. I don’t really want to control anyone. The Environmentalist calls the wild (or the entire planet, for some reason) “Mother Nature,” or “Mother Earth.”
I call the earth “the earth.” Sometimes I call the wilds, “Father Nature,” but that’s only a futile effort to bring balance back, to show that Nature has masculine and feminine parts (and quite frankly there is a lot more masculine about a forest than feminine. Tribes in the Amazon call the oldest, biggest trees “Grandfather” trees. Nature was considered masculine up until the Europeans (the Greeks, mainly) started reversing and switching everything around and upside down. Now everything is called “she”—boats, cars, cities, towns, countries, the planet, the plants and animals on the planet, mountains, storms, the moon, the oceans, the weather. Why? There seems to be an underlying consciousness determined to have everything regarded as female…why? I never understood the obsessive control-freak urge to slice and divide everything into genders; however, I do understand the source of this fanatical effort to feminize everything.
Seems like in fifty years or so, men will be called “she” also. And there will be no such thing as “masculine” or “gender;” everything and everyone will simply be regarded as feminine.
I hope I’m dead by then. Because I do not want to live in such a world.
And it seems that people really don’t think or care about this whatsoever. They just regurgitate what they’re told without giving it a second’s thought.
Anyway, more on that shit another time.)
THE CONTROL OF NATURE
I see the Environmentalist and its apparent opposite—the greedy, exploiting, soulless fuck in a business suit drooling over a new discovery of resources to plunder and grow richer from—as essentially the same. They both want to control wild regions—they may despise each other, but they’re both control freaks.
Conservation is about control, management, order. Environmentalism and “sustainability” are just another Marxist-based Collectivist system in disguise. The same old pig, grunting the same old grunts, wearing a different hat.
“Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution. For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly.
At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems on which they depend in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of sustainability. The exact nature of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic of greenwashing. Environmentalism is opposed by anti-environmentalism, which takes a skeptical stance against many environmentalist perspectives.”
See, I don’t agree with any of that. Nature doesn’t need us fucking with it, it doesn’t need to be preserved or managed—it just needs to be left alone.
A “leave it be” mentality is not a meme common in anyone who considers him-or-her-self a _______ist.
The Environmentalist and the Anti-Environmentalist basically have the same goals—the exploitation of natural resources for human usage, with all other considerations secondary. The difference is that one wants to rip it all to shreds and sell it as quickly as possible, while the other wants to do this more slowly and “responsibly.” They both seem to want a centralized “government” in charge of the rules and regulations regarding it all. (I use the word “government” quite loosely.)
One wants everything right now, damn the consequences, fuck the side-effects (pollution, destruction of ecosystems, mass-extinctions), the other wants everything in a more gradual, cleaner, more organized manner. A slower, more smile-filled, prettier, more gradual decline and death.
If one group got their way, or if the other group got their way…I’d still see fences, parks full of regulations and rules, towns and cities and economies. But I think if the Environmentalists got their way, everything and every living thing would be tagged, every bee and bug, every bird and critter, every tree and blade of grass, all electronically monitored and tracked and watched on a massive control grid. The only “wild” ground would be fenced (or walled) in, with barbed wire and cameras and armed guards, and you’d have to pay a hefty fee to enter these Nature Concentration Camps.
Now, most Environmentalists no doubt would argue rabidly with my vision of their future, claiming I got it all wrong, that I really misunderstood them, saying I’m deluded or whatever. But the Environmentalist Movement is a separate entity from its followers, the same way Christianity is separate from Chirstians. Those at the upper levels of the religion (The Church) typically have wildly differing beliefs (and agendas) than the zealots who follow.
I’m saying that people in powerful positions have different beliefs than those masses who go along with policy, procedures, and rules.
An article by David Suziki earlier this month:
The fundamental failure of environmentalism
Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.
We have not, as a species, come to grips with the explosive events that have changed our relationship with the planet. For most of human existence, we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers whose impact on nature could be absorbed by the resilience of the biosphere. Even after the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, farming continued to dominate our lives. We cared for nature. People who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which documented the terrible, unanticipated consequences of what had, until then, been considered one of science’s great inventions, DDT. Paul Mueller, who demonstrated the effects of the pesticide, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. In the economic boom after the Second World War, technology held out the promise of unending innovation, progress, and prosperity. Rachel Carson pointed out that technology has costs.
Carson’s book appeared when no government had an environment department or ministry. Millions around the world were soon swept up in what we now recognize as the environmental movement. Within 10 years, the United Nations Environment Programme was created and the first global environmental conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden.
With increasing catastrophes like oil and chemical spills and nuclear accidents, as well as issues such as species extinction, ozone depletion, deforestation, acid rain, and global warming, environmentalists pressed for laws to protect air, water, farmland, and endangered species. Millions of hectares of land were protected as parks and reserves around the world.
Thirty years later, in 1992, the largest gathering of heads of state in history met at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event was meant to signal that economic activity could not proceed without considering ecological consequences. But, aided by recessions, popped financial bubbles, and tens of millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy neoconservatives to support a cacophony of denial from rightwing pundits and think tanks, environmental protection came to be portrayed as an impediment to economic expansion.
This emphasis of economy over environment, and indeed, the separation of the two, comes as humanity is undergoing dramatic changes. During the 20th century, our numbers increased fourfold to six billion (now up to seven billion), we moved from rural areas to cities, developed virtually all of the technology we take for granted today, and our consumptive appetite, fed by a global economy, exploded. We have become a new force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale.
In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere — air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die. This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere “Mother Earth” as the source of all that matters in life.
When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited “resources” provided for our use, we act accordingly. This “anthropocentric” view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them.
It’s almost a cliché to refer to a “paradigm shift”, but that is what we need to meet the challenge of the environmental crises our species has created. That means adopting a “biocentric” view that recognizes we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable for a demanding animal like us.
What I’m seeing there is the result of people who want things both ways—there is no marriage between “economic growth” and “the natural world.” It’s oil and water. Both cannot exist in the same space. They can’t live in harmony. It’s not possible. The “economy” fucking comes from, is based on and dependent upon, “the natural world.”
Without Nature, there would be no more “economy.”
The “economy” and its inherent business model is based on infinity—infinite growth—and this planet is not infinite. Show me an economic theory in practice somewhere which is not based on growth—which in fact has an end, a point in which the folks and business types can say, “Well, that’s enough. Let’s stop.”
Who says that? Who says, “We have enough wood. Let’s stop logging—let’s never do it again. No more trees will be cut down. Shut it all down, boys”—?
Who the fuck would say: “Well, we have enough money. Let’s stop.”
Who says, “We have enough plastic, we have enough oil. Let’s cease drilling, polluting, stop it all and let’s all make we have last”—?
I’ve never heard such a thing before. I’ve never heard anyone write, speak, or even hint at the words “We Have Enough. Stop Now.”
Economics does not stop. Nations do not stop. Progress does not stop. Power is fueled by greed, and greed never sleeps. It is all based upon more, more, and more, and fucking MORE.
And this doesn’t bode well for the forest. All that “more” has a price. All that “more” has to come from somewhere. Like a cancer, “more” slowly eats away at green, living places.
Anyroad, like the Bible points out clearly (and what almost all Christians—and most other religious and non-religious folk—completely ignore, don’t understand, or don’t give a fuck about) and correctly: “You cannot serve two masters.”
You cannot serve both God and Mammon, a Higher Power and Money. You cannot serve both good and evil. You cannot serve both the environment and industry. You cannot serve both Nature and Economics. You cannot serve both the wild and the tame. You cannot serve both the Spirtual and the Material.
No, I’m sorry, kids. You can only pick one. We all serve something in life, and it can only be one thing—not two opposites.
MYTHS, LIES, & DIFFERENCES
I was a tool. In the 90s I noticed climate change in a few regions, so I was kinda sucked into to the “global warming” hysteria. But the more I looked into it and thought about it, the more I realized that climates are constantly changing on this planet.
Now I don’t care. So what? It’s warm, the seas swell, there are floods, then it’s cool, then colder, sea levels drop, ice caps grow—and it happens all over again. It’s been going on since way before humans were around. It’s normal.
Yes, abnormal is normal.
The question is: are we causing this particular change in climate?
And I have not seen much evidence to support that we are. The ice on Mars has shrunk along with the ice on Earth. How can what we’re doing here have an impact on a planet so far away? There’s no doubt that climates change, but humans are not to blame for it. There is a lot for which modern, civilized humans are to blame, yet climate change is not among them. There’s no real evidence for this.
“What about greenhouse gases omfg?!?!?”
Yeah, well, there have been such gases (going by ice core samples that have been studied) around for as long as there’s been life on this planet, and these levels rise and fall in different eras, periods, according to what the life on the planet is doing, what the sun is doing, et cetera. There is in fact evidence that carbon levels in the atmosphere follow climate change and do not precede it.
In the 1970s, the frantic hype was about Global Cooling, if you can fucking believe that. From the 1940s through the 1970s the earth was in fact getting colder, and there were doomtards writing about it and begging for government and public funding for this or that. And then through the 1980s, the cool period ended. By the late 1980s, early 1990s, the global average temperature was definitely up. And this produced the current collection of freaks frothing at the mouth and shrieking at us from every available sounding board—that the fucking sky is falling and we have to do something about it now! Oh my fucking god now! Now give us money!
Well, guess what, assholes? Over the last fifteen years, the global average temperature of the earth has not sky-rocketed, as we were all told it would. In fact, it’s basically leveled off. So, if you’re like me and are sick and fucking tired of alarmist spastics ranting and raving and spitting in your face about “Global Warming,” you can officially tell them to “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” and have evidence to back it up and challenge their parroting of their party line. Their religious dogma.
Global Climate Shifts are facts, they happen all the time and have happened for eons, and will continue to happen long after our bones are fucking dust. “Global Warming” is a myth.
Many people won’t accept this—lending evidence to the notion that Environmentalism is indeed just another religion—and I think many will deny the facts simply to continue to oppose those suited, greedy cunts whose only desire in life is to fuck everyone and acquire wealth at the expense of nature and poor people and life itself. Because these suited cunts are howling hysterically now that “they” have been proven correct in their claims that “global wamring is a myth!” But their interest in this subject was only in regards to profit, not truth. I doubt most of them ever saw any evidence, or cared to; they lied, too.
It seems that they’re all dirty, stinking, greedy, hypocritical fucking liars…
I’m so sick of all you lying fucking cunts…
Anyway, why do I find Environmentalists creepy and scary? Here’s some great examples…
This former co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) now says the ‘logging will save the world?’
I saw the article in the magazine, “Building The Coast.”
BTC: “Do you feel there’s a promising future for nuclear [power]?”
PM: “Absolutely, because it’s the only non-fossil alternative that’s almost unlimited in its ability and has proven to be one of the safest technologies. We tend to think of hydro-electric as being safe but 126,000 died in one hydro-electric accident in China in 1975. And the biggest loss of life from a man-made accident in the US was a dam bursting in the late eighteenth century in Pennsylvania where over 2000 people died.”
Ah, I see. So this is about trying not to break any records on losses in human life. What a worthy goal.
This corporate sell-out has also been quoted: “The best image that came out of that Occupy movement was this guy who had his jacket off and was wearing a tie, standing there with a sign that said, ‘Occupy a Desk.'”
I guess if you’re religious, and a fanatic, it’s easy to convert to another religion—from the environmentalist cult to the corporate cult. A hippy to a yuppy. Pagan to Catholic. Catholic to Protestant. Protestant to Jew. Jew to Hindu. Hindu to Muslim. Muslim to Atheist. Atheist to Satanist, which is just a new age Pagan.
Anywaty, one more:
Most environmentalists are in no doubt. The new technology of fracking to extract shale gas from the rocks beneath our homes is both a nasty neighbour and a sure recipe for climate Armageddon. Not only that, fracking was pioneered in the US, the gas-guzzling land of climate sceptics.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, uses high-pressure water to shatter shale rocks and release natural gas lurking within. The gas is then piped to the surface. Shale rocks are widespread. But fracking requires lots of water; the toxic sludges brought back to the surface can cause pollution; and the extraction has even triggered minor earthquakes.
However, I can’t bring myself to condemn it. These drawbacks mean there are plenty of places where fracking would not be a good idea, especially in crowded Britain. But that is different from the blanket ban that most environment groups demand.
Frightening. I doubt that the maker of this documentary—Gasland:
—and all the people suffering the horrible fucking side-effects of fracking would feel the same way.
Saying that Fracking is good for the future of energy is like saying what Monsanto’s doing to food is good for the future of food. Hey, fucklehead, a lesser evil is still fucking evil.
And I’m not even sure that it would be a lesser of two evils…
(By the way, watch that goddamned documentary. You can find “Gasland” on torrents, apparently.)
Here’s another fucking gem:
Earth Hour: millions prepare to switch off the lights
Sigh. This is the break from reality—the separation of action and consequence, sure, but it’s more a rift between words/thoughts and action—that I always talk about people having.
“I dropped a dollar into the can in the store—I’m supporting the fight against breast cancer.”
Why isn’t anyone looking at why cancer rates keep climbing, in spite of the modern techno-wonderland in which we live? Why is everything geared towards Treament, and even a Cure, when nothing’s being done about where it’s coming from in the first place? Fuck the cure—what’s causing it?
“I care about the environment: I recycle.”
How the fuck is that a solution? Why not use less, stop buying so much fucking shit to begin with? We shouldn’t be producing so much crap—recycling doesn’t teach people to be “content with less.” It’s horrible because it teaches people that they can buy whatever they want, consume as much as they want, do whatever they want…all as long as they recycle their cans and plastic. That makes them good responsible citizens. That clears their conscience, more like…
Is this slowing down the manufacturing of plastic? No. Of anything at all? No. Is this slowing the deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, or stopping any logging operations whatsoever? Not at all. Are less cans being produced? Are you fucking kidding me?
Is there less packaging to begin with compared to ten years ago? Are you serious?
The “green” movement is a fucking joke. A cop-out. A gimmick suckering in people for murky reasons. I sense it has a murky agenda. Control always stinks. I can always smell it.
Aside from that, it’s solving nothing. It just slows down the inevitable…a little bit. Benefitting nothing but our egos and the corporations who have jumped onboard this shit wagon to sell us junk. It’s harmful to make people feel so proud about their piggish excess, their decadence and rampant consumption. It’s a terrible lesson for kids:
“Be pigs!—just makie sure to recycle your pig shit.”
Yeah, shutting off our lights for an hour will do a lot. Show our “support” for the environment—like putting a stupid coloured ribbon sticker on the ass end of your gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing, wars-for-oil-causing metal dinosaurs on wheels. People do not have any notion what *support* fucking means.
Piss on your fucking Earth Hour. I’m going to turn more lights on just to protest you annoying, pushy, hypocritical, evangelical, deluded fucking cunts.
I’m going to live in an environment—“caring” about it isn’t a choice. It’s my home. I won’t shit in my bed. I won’t piss in my water supply. The forest is my home. I don’t need to recycle because I won’t be rushing off to a mall in my fucking SUV to stuff the monstrous thing with slave-labour-made crap at fucking Walmart that I’ll haul back to my massive press-board Ikea castle, unpack everything and fill up three garbage bags with paper and carboard and plastic and foam.
I don’t drive or use gas or oil—that’s my way of “supporting” the fucking environment. If a third of the people on this planet thought and behaved like I did, do, and will, then we’d be using a third less steel, concrete, plastic, oil, wood, tin, alluminium, gravel, glass; there’d be a third less pollution, a third less homes being developed and a third less natural ground being annihilated to make way for such development; a third less landfill waste, a third less cars farting smog, a third less factories coughing out toxic plumes because they’d be a third less demand for all this fucking crap we don’t need.
I resuse everything I have anyway—I don’t need some smiling suited cunt to convince me of its economic benefits or that it’s fucking “saving the world.” I need only look at pre-history and how Natives lived, and the respect and reverence they had for the environment in which they lived.
And that’s the point right there: if you don’t live in a forest, why would you give a fuck about it?
You know nothing about it, see no value in it—and must be taught (read: emotionally manipulated into caring) that it must be “preserved” for future generations to enjoy.
Really? Is that why it must be “preserved”—for the offspring of our own species? Not for its own sake? Not for any other ideal or reason? It should be spared utter destruction just for our kids to be able one day to load up their Jeep with camping shit to go off driving down a wilderness road, to laugh and yell with music blasting as they spew exhaust and send every living creature running away in a panic, all so these spoiled brats can drink beer and fuck their girlfriends in a tent later, hopefully not leaving their beer cans and used condoms lying around after they do the forest a favour and fuck off outta there back to the loving golden arms of Mater?
And what does “preserve” mean exactly?
Control. Manage. Organize.
More bureaucracy. Parks. Fenced off, their borders visible on a map. Cameras. Specific roads for use with specific vehicles at specific times of the year. Rules and people in uniforms enforcing these rules. You need permits, licenses, papers, permissions—for every fucking thing you do.
You may hunt, but you must have the correct weapon, the corresponding documents, background checks, valid ID and other information, approval from a psychiatrist, and you can only hunt this specific creature at this time of year, and you may only hunt this many of them. And all this costs money, of course. No money? Fuck off back the city slums, maggot. Nature is for rich kids, don’t you know. We’re warning you. Keep out.
Or else we’ll put you in a cage and poke you with a stick. Right in the ass.
You want to live in the forest and live off the land? In a Federal Park? In a Provincial Park? In a United Nations Approved Conservation Area? Are you insane?
No. No, my silly friend. No. Nature is a business, and a playground for urban dwellers, and you are only free to live in a city or town and use these natural facilities, provided you have the necessary documents and permits, and follow the regulations.
You are free to live where we say, how we say. You are free to do what we tell you. Or else.
“You want to cook the food you have, eh? Did you get permission to make that fire? Do you have a permit for moving those stones into a circle and digging that pit? You have no papers whatsoever? Any ID? Credit Card or Debit Card? No? I’m sorry, son, you’re breaking several laws here. Put that fire out, put your hands behind your back; you’re under arrest for Vagrancy, Endangering a Conservation Area, Starting A Fire Without License, Upsetting The Earth Without Permission, and Failure to Produce Proper Documentation and Permits Within A State Park.”
That’s all it’s about. It’s all it’s ever about. And it will only get worse. Environmentalism, when you really start looking at it, is fucking ugly and twisted at its core. It’s a hideous, lying control freak.
Here’s another example:
This is part of Agenda 21 regarding the redistribution of wealth and property in the United States. See all that red? That’s for Nature: you are not allowed in these areas. Only authorized personnel. How are we going to know precisely what they’re doing with that “Nature?” How are we to know if it’s going to be natural areas at all?
Not that we’ll have a say in anything, because personal freedoms will be sacrificed in the name of saving the world.
See the yellow areas? These are “highly regulated” areas. You’ll need pretty detailed papers, indentification, and permissions to be in these areas. Want to go camping? No. That is a non-sustainable activity. No more camping, fishing, hunting, skiing, waterskiing, canoe trips, backpacking adventures. You can only play in a city park, under supervision. I am not kidding. It’s in the works, coming to a country, county, and town or city near you.
Speaking of which, guess where humans get to live? I can’t even see the areas on there—probably because they’re too small. Tiny black specks—massive cities in which we will be herded.
Remember the movie Nineteen-Eighty-Four? The scene in which Winston and his lady friend want to go do the unthinkable in the woods? Well, they have to sneak off—sneak away from the city into a forbidden area—where there is green grass and trees.
Here is a short list of human activity that will no longer be allowed due to its new classification as “not sustainable”—in other words, these things will be illegal:
1. ALL private property rights (ownership of private property)
2. ALL forms of irrigation, pesticides & commercial fertilizer
3. Livestock production and most meat consumption
4. Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
5. Use of fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
6. Single family homes
7. Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
8. Human population (it must be reduced to fewer than 1 billion people–from the present population of over 6 billion people).
Yes, you saw that right—number six means families are not sustainable and thus will be illegal. No more moms and dads. The New Order will raise your kids. The New World Order will decide what’s best for you, at all levels, and decide what’s best for the world, at all levels.
This is control never imagined before on this planet.
I am pro-freedom, and thus must be against control. I am pro-independence and pro-self-sufficiency, and thus must be anti-corporation and anti-government.
I am pro-Nature, pro-Truth and pro-Freedom, and thus must be against Environmentalism and against Anti-Environmentalism.
Here’s a good place to start seeing the underlying sketchy nature of the entire movement—it is called Agenda 21:
Talk about murky agendas…check this out:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Alexander King, Co-Founder, Club of Rome.
What is the Club of Rome? Go look it up, do a little research and see. Check out the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Sierra Club. They’re all connected to the United Nations. Don’t believe me, do your own research…
Okay, I’ll lay off Environmentalism and its zealots for a minute, and move onto Anti-Environmentalism and its zealots…because they are almost as bad, just a bit different.
A representative for an evangelical group that doesn’t believe in man-made climate change has suggested that the modern environmental movement is harming civilization.
Speaking on the Janet Mefferd Show on March 18, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance laid out four reasons why environmentalism is “the greatest threat to Western civilization.”
Environmentalism is insidious, Beisnser explained, and it dangerously “speaks to the inherent spiritual yearnings of human souls and it provides plausible answers to dogged questions.” It also incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.”
I can’t argue with most of that, yet I really don’t care about civilization. The disgusting sick mass-structure people inhabit doesn’t interest me—people do; animals do; plants do. Living things do. Civilization can burn in fucking hell, Mr. Beisner, for all I care.
—incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.” Lastly, “environmentalism encompasses all the vague spiritualities that have frankly overwhelmed secular humanism in the West and now threaten the Christian faith.”
I’m always skeptical regarding motives and the agenda behind religious types—who pretty much collectively view “nature” as an evil entity which must be tamed, conquered, or even destroyed entirely.
Why? Because the Bible was written by farmers. Native peoples and nomadic peoples, hunters, et cetera, were always viewed biblically as barbarians, evil pagans, sinners who must be civilized and shown the True Way (farming and kneeling before our god(s) and goddess(s)).
And most of the Bible was written by (edited by), and employed by, the rulers of States (see: the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church in Europe) in order to demonize a wild group of people so that they could be assimilated (turned into tax-paying farmers; serfs) and so the State could absorb them and their resources. The Bible was a tool used ruthlessly to conquer people and steal their land.
And so that mentality still stinks in the breath of its followers, even if they do not support such actions today.
In November, he told the hosts of the American Family Association “Today’s Issues” program that humans could not possibly be causing the “catastrophic consequences for the climate” warned by global warming scientists.
“That doesn’t fit well with the biblical teaching that the earth is the result of the omniscient design, the omnipotent creation and the faithful sustaining of the God of the Bible. So it really is an insult to God,” Beisner said.
The professor, who has a doctorate in Scottish history, was also featured in Bill Moyers’ 2006 documentary “Is God Green?”
During interviews for the special, Beisner said that Genesis dictates humans should “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” This disproves the opinion of the “anti-population growth” activists, according to Beisner, who adds that pollution is a natural byproduct of reality.
While modern humans are not causing climate change, we are (fucking obviously) causing a lot of other kinds of “changes.” One could deny this easily (and defend it okay) fifty years ago, but since satellite images are available to the general public, we can see.
Yeah, you fucking greedy shit-faced lairs, I see you. I see what you’re doing. I’ve scanned most of the world and have seen the devastation, the dead zones of human development, the vast atrocious chunks hacked out of the planet, swathes of destruction, where great grey deserts replace green places.
Naw, there’s no real deforestation—especially in the Amazon, as seen above. Keep moving, nothing to see here…
Fucking liars. I see you.
—pollution is a natural byproduct of reality?
No, wait, let’s think about that. Odd that a Christian would cling to something “natural” to prove a point—but, hell, what’s that expression? “Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose?”
I think we are naturally slobs. Think about it. Look at a monkey in a tree, eating fruit and nuts—it tosses everything down to the forest floor. Look at any animal in the wild, it’s a slob. It’s messy and careless. Shit gets thrown everywhere—what we call “littering” and “pollution” today.
What’s the difference?
Natural materials get broken down on the forest floor and become soil. There’s no need to be tidy and concern yourself with recycling because what you’re using came from an ecosystem in which everything gets automatically recycled, unconsciously, naturally.
The difference is this and the fact we are aware of ourselves, and are now using artificial materials that don’t get broken down and have terrible fucking side-effects when dumped and poured into a living and growing natural region.
The difference is that we are (and what we’re doing is) not natural, asshat.
I can put this in terms a seven-year-old should be able to understand, but I don’t know how to put this into terms a two-year-old can comprehend.
“Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”
This is and has always been where I drawn a line in the fucking sand. This fucking pisses me off.
I can agree with Christians, surprisingly, on all sorts of things, but not here. The average Christian who supports this, blindly obeys without questioning, has no fucking clue what it was like back then, no clue whatsoever where the Bible came from, who really wrote it, how many different versions existed and how far they go back in time—I know: I spent years researching this—and why it was pieced together from so many other sources. And it had nothing to do with its content.
The average Christian can never admit to any fact of that time, and before it, due to the probable total breakdown in the Creationist time-line and nature of the persona called “God” in the Bible (his—or should I say her—origins), and, as a result, the complete collapse of the most of the early parts of the Bible—a domino effect that would cause him to question his entire faith.
So very few Christians will be brave enough to look deeper into any of it, and so here we are. And I have no energy for a multi-page rant getting into all this crap again. Fuck it. It would be pointless. Moving on…
First of all, that was at a time when human populations in the Middle East were not great, and life spans were short, and disease was fairly persistant and nasty—no one back then had any idea how big the world really was, or that it even had a limit in regards to space and resources.
Second of all, it was the process of States to produce massive amounts of people—the more people, the more gold from taxes, the larger workforce, the bigger group of worshippers (customers for the temples), and the larger the armies could be…which could be used to expand and steal from neighbouring tribes and villages, towns, and later cities and city-states.
Who cared how many people they had? There was so much land ready for plunder, and besides, any excess in population could be offered up as sacrifices and hacked to death in seasonal wars. The spring was the best time for such slaughter of men. Mars. March. April—Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, Astarte, all the same goddess. Look it up. Look up the origin of “Easter,” just for starters. I fucking dare you.
Third, “subduing it,” well, this is clearly what a ruler wants—not a group of people respectful of natural ways and living things and each other, not a peaceful people living in harmony with their environment. No, only a king or queen who wants more wealth.
But Christians don’t care about what parts of the Bible were added by the rulers of the day to serve their desires, not the needs of the people, not the needs of the ecosystem. However, I’m sure many Christians have doubts about this, or have even given it more than two minutes of thought…it doesn’t matter, though: most Christians live more like the Romans in the Bible than any other group of people or type of individual (least of all Jesus) and anything that supports their greedy, ego-driven, willful lifestyle will be framed and put on their wall.
I love it how many Christians will snub their nose at the Old Testament, or parts of it, where it might conflict with what Jesus said…but when other things come into conflict with their decadent, diversion-filled, material-obsessed shitheap they call a lifestyle, they’ll get wide-eyed and grab some part of the Old Testament to stuff into someone’s face to support their life and the status quo, and what Jesus said or did be damned.
Control it. Enslave it and milk it and say it’s “God’s Fucking Will.”
Conquer, mutilate and murder and call it “Progress.”
Just like good Romans. May Jesus come back and spit in your faces…
What did he say?
New International Version: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”
KJV: “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”
GOD’S WORD Translation: “Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest, or gather the harvest into barns. Yet, your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they?
He’s talking about agriculture. Farming. Work. Labour. The backbone of the Roman Empire and every empire-state-nation before and since. Jesus, a wandering ascetic fisherman, is talking about the very essence of “subduing” the fucking earth, asshole. He’s talking about your fucked-up way of life today. You, Mr. Beisner, and anyone who lives like you.
How’s it feel, asshole? To become the very thing that Jesus warned everyone about? A fucking Roman living a corrupt, diseased, material lifestyle? How’s it feel to know that a fucking non-religious loser like me lives closer to how Jesus lived than you have or ever will? How’s it feel to be a fucking cunt?
He’s talking about something deeper, too. He’s talking about a greater issue—the spiritual versus the material. But whatever. They’ll never listen.
Like I say, it’s easier to believe bullshit.
Whether you’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, New Ager, Environmentalist, Anti-Environmentalist, Pagan, Satanist, Feminist, Marxist, Fascist, Creationist, Anarchist, Flat-Earther, Capitalist, Evolutionist, or Racist…it’s just easier to eat shit, isn’t it?
Why all these fuckers hate each other is because they’re so much alike. They all lie, don’t practice what they peach, trying to serve two masters, and they’re all utter hypocrites.
Fuck all you phonies.
Well, seeing how I just offended most of the civilized population of the planet, I conclude that here’s a good place to end for now. I said all I wanted to say on this creepy subject, anyway.
I’ve never left off with any quotes from the Bible, but what the fuck…there’s a first time for everything, and it fits. So, here’s some good stuff from my man, Jesus. Christians could learn so much from this guy—I guess we all could. Enjoy.
19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.
23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
25“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
27“And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
28“And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,
29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.30“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
31“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’
32“For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
33“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
—-Matthew 6:19-34, International, top, and King James Version, below
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
—-Matthew 7:1-7:6, International and King James Version