Pelosi’s Eco-Totalitarianism

[Ed Hudgins]

Pelosi's Eco-Totalitarianism

by Edward Hudgins

May 29, 2009 – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently met with Beijing officials to secure international agreement about tighter restrictions on economic activity in order to deal with perceived global warming. Happily, China's regime over the past three decades has been moving away from its Maoist cult and totalitarian communism and towards more freedom, most notably in its economy. Thus Beijing officials are reluctant to strangle economic freedom and, as a result, slow economic growth with such restrictions.

Sadly, it looks like Pelosi has picked up the totalitarian sword and is bringing it back with her to wield against Americans in the name of what can only be called an environmentalist cult.

Consider the three elements shared by Marxist communism and this Eco-cult.

First, both are collectivist. Communism rejects the moral primacy of the individual in the name of a group, "the Proletariat." Individuals don't have a right to their own lives. They are not to be left alone to do as they see fit, dealing with others based on mutual consent rather than the initiation of force. Under communist morality we're all expected to sacrifice our personal goals, values, and dreams for the good of the downtrodden. The purpose of communist governments is to force subjects at gunpoint to do the bidding of political elites who supposedly know what is in the interest of the "the Proletariat."

The Eco-cult is collectivist as well. Al Gore wrote that "We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization." Here he does not mean simply that we should deal with cases in which pollution directly harms humans. Rather, we're expected to sacrifice ourselves not even for the alleged good of other humans as was the case with communism. Rather, we're to give up our own wellbeing for a non-human, the Earth-goddess Gaia, to preserve frozen mud in northern Alaska or mosquitoes in putrid, disease-ridden muck, labeled "wetlands." And a ruling elite—Gore, Pelosi, Obama—will force us at gunpoint to do what they feel is in the interest of the environment.

Second, both communism and the Eco-cult rely heavily on indoctrination, especially of young people. We know the story of the communist practice of crushing critical thinking and substituting in its place strict thought control.

In China, Pelosi told audiences how important it is to teach American children about the need to conserve energy. Not to teach children to ask critical questions about energy: What is it? Is it a free, natural resource or does it require human thought to figure out how to unleash it? Is it morally acceptable for us to use energy to serve our goals in life? Are there limits to usable energy?

No, such questioning is just what the Eco-cult wants to restrict. It wants quasi-religious indoctrination of the youth, with Gore's Earth in the Balance substituting for Mao's Little Red Book. It wants the movie An Inconvenient Truth shown in schools as if it were gospel.

Third, both communism and the Eco-cult want to control every aspect of our lives. That's what differentiates them from run-of-the-mill dictatorships. Again, we know the story of communist attempts to have no individual or institution outside of state control. All economic life was planned by elites. All social activities were organized under the supervision of the Communist apparatchiks. Children were encouraged to inform on any dissenting views expressed by their parents.

In China, speaking about how to deal with global warming, Pelosi said, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." What a breathtaking totalitarian statement!

In past decades those who accept the premises of the Eco-cult have been bringing every aspect of the production and consumption of goods and services in the United States under government control in the name of their god. Sometimes they've done this quietly through obscure changes in government regulations and sometimes through very public outright bans. These moves have set the stage for total control.

The notion that "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory" will mean that each child will be instilled with a new version of original sin that will make them feel guilty for every human act of their lives: "I live in a house that required the murder of trees." "I eat food that required despoiling and disrupting nature with farms." "I breathe, which produces carbon dioxide that warms up the planet."

Such guilt is necessary to keep subjects obedient and submissive to an anti-individualist ideology. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, if you sell someone poison as a virtue, you won't have to kill them; they'll commit suicide.

Many Americans see concern for the planet, training kids to turn off the lights when they're not in the room, and being conscious of the impact of our actions on the environment as sound practices to allow us to enjoy a clean Earth. But the fundamental premises of the Eco-cult, whether recognized explicitly or not, have a logic all their own. The result will not simply be drinkable water and breathable air. The logic of those premises points to the emergence of a totalitarian regime just as surely as did the premises of communism.

The Eco-cult has grown strong politically because its opponents have failed to challenge its fundamental premises. Friends of freedom and reason must make clear to Americans what's in store for us if this trend continues. And we must confront politicians and opinion-makers who peddle the moral pollution that will damn us to enslavement and misery.

------------

Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society, the Center for Objectivism.

For further information:

*Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution." In The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution," 1971.

*Edward Hudgins, "Light Up the World for Humans." March 27, 2009.

*Edward Hudgins, "New Cult of Darkness." April 2, 2007.

*Robert Bidinotto, "Green Cathedrals: Environmentalism's Mythological Appeal." The New Individualist, September 2007.

[Selene]

Correct Ed.

"No, such questioning is just what the Eco-cult wants to restrict. It wants quasi-religious indoctrination of the youth, with Gore's Earth in the Balance substituting for Mao's Little Red Book. It wants the movie An Inconvenient Truth shown in schools as if it were gospel."

"The notion that 'Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory' will mean that each child will be instilled with a new version of original sin that will make them feel guilty for every human act of their lives: 'I live in a house that required the murder of trees.' 'I eat food that required despoiling and disrupting nature with farms.' 'I breathe, which produces carbon dioxide that warms up the planet.'"

These eco fascists have managed to either "create" this poll or, more frighteningly, this poll is accurate.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/ki...environment.php

Now this is pre O'Biwan the magnificent's little metastasized cancers in the EPA, IRS, Dept. of Education and on and on and on.

56%!!!!

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The parallels between the Communist left and environmentalism need to be hammered in the public.

I rarely read on environmentalism, but I do remember reading somewhere that the actual people and ringleaders involved in the hard left (in the USA and abroad) migrated to environmentalism after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It would be interesting to name names if this is true.

Michael

[Michelle]

This is NOT primarily a political issue.

There's only three questions:

1) Is global warming a threat to human civilization?

2) If it is, is our contribution significant enough that decreasing it dramatically will increase our chances of future survival proportionally?

3) If it is so, then how shall we deal with it?

The importance of them is decreasing in order.

I never cared enough to really study into it much (I watched An Inconvenient Truth, and didn't really see anything offensive about it, but, like I said, I haven't been doing any research about this), but this needs to be addressed in a rational manner.

What's the point of comparing environmentalists to communists? If the science isn't valid, just invalidate the science. This 'guilt by association' tactic is silly.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

As to environmentalism in general, as long as it sticks with common-sense community initiatives and individual choices that supposedly help the environment (using energy efficient bulbs, recycling, etc.), I see no problem with it. Best not to paint everybody with the same brush. Not every environmentalist is a member of Earth First.

[thomtg]

As to environmentalism in general, as long as it sticks with common-sense community initiatives and individual choices that supposedly help the environment (using energy efficient bulbs, recycling, etc.), I see no problem with it. Best not to paint everybody with the same brush. Not every environmentalist is a member of Earth First.

I agree with the sentiment about the everyday concerns about not littering or not wasting electricity and water bills (economizing). But then people with those everyday concerns should be careful to identify and call themselves "environmentalists." "Environmentalism" has a certain core set of principles that may only align with those everyday concerns at the most superficial, tangential level.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Thom T G

[Michelle]

And finally, I'll say this: I don't get the Randian aversion to appreciating natural beauty. There was a scene in ATLAS SHRUGGED where Dagny said that she hates people who don't want to see billboards in the countryside. Fine for her, but I don't agree. Sometimes it is nice to drive out into the country and not have to see some gaudy advertisement during the trip. Does this mean I'm a civilization-hating nutjob who wants to destroy industrial society and return to the trees? No. But on occasion it is nice to get away from people and from civilization and enjoy the serenity of a natural setting.

Of course, I don't think a person can hate natural settings and live in Tennessee. The state is 90% trees.

[Michelle]

As to environmentalism in general, as long as it sticks with common-sense community initiatives and individual choices that supposedly help the environment (using energy efficient bulbs, recycling, etc.), I see no problem with it. Best not to paint everybody with the same brush. Not every environmentalist is a member of Earth First.

I agree with the sentiment about the everyday concerns about not littering or not wasting electricity and water bills (economizing). But then people with those everyday concerns should be careful to identify and call themselves "environmentalists." "Environmentalism" has a certain core set of principles that may only align with those everyday concerns at the most superficial, tangential level.

I don't think hatred of industrial society and wanting to preserve the Earth necessarily go hand-in-hand.

It is possible for humans to thrive AND to protect the environment.

In particular, I really think businesses will begin to see the value and efficiency of green technology once it is utilized more efficiently.

[Selene]

Folks:

I have looked into this moderately. However, the elements that have migrated into the Sierra Club, the EPA studies people and the "green movement" are hard left dedicated marxists who see the systematic crippling of productive businesses as a more altruistically based underbelly to infiltrate in the educational and middle class castes of America and Europe.

Fundamentalist Muslims will join in the effort and then decapitate the bourgeois assholes.

As Bill, Hilary and O'Biwan's common mentor stated:

"...Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialisticm decadent, boutgeois degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized, and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are

if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the big middle class majority."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7032401152.html <<<Slevin's column from which that Alinsky quote is from.

http://www.prorev.com/2007/03/clinton-obama-alinsky-myth.htm <<< an opposing point of view.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is NOT primarily a political issue.

Michelle,

Intellectually and scientifically it is not a political issue. But in politics is most certainly is. (I was once surprised to learn this myself.)

There is a truck-load of laws and enforcers waiting in the wings and organizing.

The sad part is that you cannot really discuss this in public. People start yelling, dumping loads of statistics at you and demanding complete adherence to their side and demonization of the opposite. I once tried it on OL here:

Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle

I had a visceral reaction against the propaganda-like demonizing tone in The Great Global Warming Swindle (as I do against all blatant propaganda efforts) and basically said so. But I thought the ideas in the film and the challenge to Gore's theory needed to be discussed. At that time I sincerely wanted to know something about the issue since I knew slightly more than nothing.

Boy, was I sorry I even mentioned it.

Then I smelled government money at the root and said so. All hell broke loose.

From what I have witnessed of this debate (and not just on OL), I don't want either side to get power.

Ever.

Michael

[Michelle]

This is NOT primarily a political issue.

Michelle,

Intellectually and scientifically it is not a political issue. But in politics is most certainly is. (I was once surprised to learn this myself.)

There is a truck-load of laws and enforcers waiting in the wings and organizing.

The sad part is that you cannot really discuss this in public. People start yelling, dumping loads of statistics at you and demanding complete adherence to their side and demonization of the opposite. I once tried it on OL here:

Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle

I had a visceral reaction against the propaganda-like demonizing tone in The Great Global Warming Swindle (as I do against all blatant propaganda efforts) and basically said so. But I thought the ideas in the film and the challenge to Gore's theory needed to be discussed. At that time I sincerely wanted to know something about the issue since I knew slightly more than nothing.

Boy, was I sorry I even mentioned it.

Then I smelled government money at the root and said so. All hell broke loose.

From what I have witnessed of this debate (and not just on OL), I don't want either side to get power.

Ever.

Michael

Michael, I know what you mean. It seems like any rational discussion of this is sandwiched in-between the insane rantings of two opposite and opposing political 'sides' who are so obsessed with the political implications of global warming that they'll destroy anything in their way to get what they want, regardless of the facts.

What I meant was that I am a believer in an objective reality that operates independent of how we perceive it. This global warming thing supposedly does exist, as people on both sides affirm. You get warming and cooling cycles. The question is "how will it affect us on Earth?" and "Can we do anything about it?" You'd think a question that concerned the FATE OF THE HUMAN RACE would be something people would want to answer scientifically and objectively, apart from political bias.

It is a serious question which needs to be addressed, and it disgusts me that these people are concerned about power relations based on the results.

Unfortunately, contradictions don't exist. This thing either will or will not become a problem. And the result could very well impact global socio-economic measures.

[Selene]

Michelle/Michael:

"...a question that concerned the FATE OF THE HUMAN RACE would be something people would want to answer scientifically and objectively, apart from political bias."

Yes, it is a serious question. We should try to address it again.

I just looked at that 2007 thread quickly. I was not even a member then.

I, frankly, do not believe that the "fate of the human race" is remotely "at stake", but how we can make this cycle work for the planet and us is a great discussion.

Adam

[Michelle]

Michelle/Michael:

"...a question that concerned the FATE OF THE HUMAN RACE would be something people would want to answer scientifically and objectively, apart from political bias."

Yes, it is a serious question. We should try to address it again.

I just looked at that 2007 thread quickly. I was not even a member then.

I, frankly, do not believe that the "fate of the human race" is remotely "at stake", but how we can make this cycle work for the planet and us is a great discussion.

Adam

If we're in no significant danger because of it, then any question of economic controls because of it becomes immoral.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Our weather people cannot even predict with more than a fair degree of accuracy a hurricane in full blast.

So how is either side going to prove their case?

After all, proving one means disproving the other, and that means we really do know what the hell is going on with the weather.

But we don't except for glimpses. There are just too many moving parts for our stage of knowledge and control. That is my conclusion.

Still, there's all that government loot, and scientists have to eat...

You know how it is...

Michael

[Michelle]

Our weather people cannot even predict with more than a fair degree of accuracy a hurricane in full blast.

So how is either side going to prove their case?

After all, proving one means disproving the other, and that means we really do know what the hell is going on with the weather.

But we don't except for glimpses. There are just too many moving parts for our stage of knowledge and control. That is my conclusion.

Still, there's all that government loot, and scientists have to eat...

You know how it is...

Michael

What I mean is that our society is advancing on a technological level so quickly these days that I wouldn't be surprised if soonish a system arose which could make reliable predictions on as dynamic a system as our weather.

Until something is known for certain, inaction is the best course.

I think it is also fair to note that the burden of proof rests with the global warming people. Just as an atheist does not need to prove that no god exists, so a global warming critic does not need to prove that global warming isn't happening.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

I would challenge anyone to take the affirmative on:

Resolved that: The phenomena of "global warming" is a significant threat to the existence of mankind within the next millennium.

Adam

Post script: or substitute one or modify the above proposition.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

I would challenge anyone to take the affirmative on:

Resolved that: The phenomena of "global warming" is a significant threat to the existence of mankind within the next millennium.

Because of fascism.

--Brant

[Selene]

Ah lol sorry only the negative can surrender the presumption and come up with a negative counter plan - good one Brant

[Ed Hudgins]

Adam – Thanks for the link! While we might question the poll, I suspect that kids are freeing back to questioners the messages with which their teachers indoctrinate them. This is how cultures change for the worse

Michelle – Shortly before his movie came out, I was in a meeting at which Al Gore gave the live version with slides of his Inconvenient Truth, including his outline of what I considered to be draconian measures for cutting back energy use and the like to deal with global warming. The first questioner asked whether Gore would favor these measures even if there were no global warming. He answered, "Yes." This certainly reveals his deeper agenda.

I'll leave it to you to check out the mountains of material suggesting that the argument that global warming threatens human civilization is bogus. I suggest The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) by Christ Horner. Also Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. Fred's an actual climate scientist.

Note also that many environmentalists don't speak of "global warming"—there's been none for the past ten years—but, rather, "climate change." Of course, the climate is always changing, with or without humans. I think this change in terminology reflects a desire to have an open-ended excuse to push for their deeper, anti-human agenda.

Many of those who fear global warming don't go so far as to suggest that human civilization will be destroyed but, rather, point to the sort of more specific problems—changes in rainfall, sea levels—that have occurred throughout human history because of climate change not caused by humans. But they fail to ask several other questions:

*Are there upsides to such warming, for example, longer growing seasons in colder climates?

*Can draconian measures actually make any real difference?

*Are there serious downsides to these measures, for example, increased poverty and the like?

*Are there less draconian ways to deal with alleged adverse effects of warming?

[Selene]

Ed:

One absolute "upside" of global warming is less total human deaths world wide.

If you follow this new tack taken by their marxist movement, this would cause more eating of meat which would increase the flatulence factor which would increase the climate change and on and on....

As long as the net result is less industry and less human achievement and more leveling they see the promised oasis in the heat shimmers.

And it is, of course, a mirage.

Adam