The “green religion” versus civilization as we know it

Ivan Brezina, writing in his article “Ecologism as a Green Religion” (2004), clearly and correctly draws the distinction between what he calls the “green religion” and “scientific ecology.” Brezina is a biologist by training, so he should certainly know.

Brezina does not consider environmentalism (or, “ecologism,” as he calls it) “a rational and scientific answer to a genuine ecological crisis.” Rather, he sees it as a general rejection of “the current form of civilization.” The radical thought of “green religion” is that hidden “in the very essence of modern society” are the seeds of some impending ecological disaster, even though the “green religion” adherents have been shown repeatedly to have to lie and distort their so-called “facts” and “findings” in order to “prove” (falsely) that this is so.

Czech economist Karel Kriz also sees environmentalism as “a new religion,” when he cleverly asks: “Who was responsible for the vanishing of the glaciers from the Czech mountains? Was it, perhaps, the Urnfield people?” The implication being, of course, that the vanishing of these glaciers far predated any of the forces the environmentalists now see at work in the modern society they are determined to undermine.

---

Think about it: If Al Gore really believed what he claims to believe, would he be living in a home known for its massive and wasteful use of electricity or flying a private jet hither and thither to garner large honorariums for speaking?

---

But, what do leaders and adherents to this “green religion” really believe? Consider this quote from Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University, and author of The Population Bomb (1968):

“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” [As quoted by Christopher C. Horner in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (2007)]

They really do want to return America and the world to the scarcity, want and deprivation experienced by societies centuries ago and which innovation and hard work have striven to overcome.

---

See also: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/

The bizarre essence of environmentalism

“The bizarre essence of environmentalism becomes manifest when we observe how the character of the environmentalist attacks has changed over time—for the environmentalists, the particular object of the criticism is not that important. What is important is to evoke the sense of peril, to foresee a danger of undreamed-of magnitude, to show the acuteness of the threat. As this kind of atmosphere is created, a new obligation emerges: to act quickly (possibly right now), without paying attention to details or costs of the newly employed measure. In this atmosphere, the rule becomes to ignore entirely the opportunity costs (that is, the expenses and profit wasted by rearranging priorities); to omit the usual, allegedly slow procedures of representative democracy; to disregard the common, ordinary people (because explaining everything to them would be too time consuming); and to decide directly, with the aid of those who know how things work.” (p.5f)
Blue Planet in Green Shackles Vaclav Klaus

This brief excerpt explains both the duplicity of the anthropogenic global warming and climate change radicals and their willingness to bypass the normal controls and limits established by a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

Socialists have been effectively destroying human freedom…

“In the past 150 years (at least since Marx), the socialists have been very effectively destroying human freedom under humane and compassionate slogans, such as caring for man, ensuring social equality, and fostering social welfare. The environmentalists are doing the same under equally noble-minded slogans, expressing concern about nature more than people (recall their motto “Earth First!”). In both cases, the slogans have been (and still are) just a smokescreen. In both cases, the movements were (and are) completely about power, about the hegemony of the “chosen ones” (as they see themselves) over the rest of us [read: “the masses”], about the imposition of the only correct worldview (their own), about the remodeling of the world.” [p.6]

Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Vaclav Klaus