The Death of Environmentalism

In the 1970s and into the early 1980s the environmentalism movement was betrayed and hijacked by the revolutionary communist and socialist movements. The activists of these groups had infiltrated the movement and turned it into a vehicle for anti-capitalism, anti-americanism and the promotion of a post-socialist agenda that is nonetheless aimed at a lunatic idea of “shared wealth”. Patrick Moore left Greenpeace in 1985 over this hijack of the movement.
While I’m not very sympathetic to the environmentalist movement at present, when one looks back at the reasons why the movement came into being  – industrial pollution and destruction of the countryside with all the effects on human life that followed, then looking over how much better Britain is for that movement, pressing for sensible change, then we should be glad of it.
If one looks at China and Russia today, where an environmentalism movement could not begin because of the political conditions on the ground and extends one’s view to take in the damage being done, especially in China, where are the environmentalists now?

The answer is that they continue to attack democracy and the political system that allowed the movement to evolve in the first place. The environmentalists began in the 1960s with serious and honest motives. They were hijacked by the radical socialists and betrayed. Today there is no longer an environmental movement because the environmental movement is dead.


2 Responses to The Death of Environmentalism

  1. JOS says:

    Great insight! “Political environmentalists” aren’t interested in the environment, they’re interested in control. The worst offender is the U.N. who exerts an enormous amount of control over industrialized nations through environmental accountability. They accomplish this by manipulating science. Ayn Rand warned of scientific capitulation to political expediency stating,

    Men are not open to the truth or reason. … If [scientists] want to accomplish anything, we have to deceive [politicians] into letting us accomplish it. Or force them. They understand nothing else. We cannot expect their support for any endeavor of the intellect, for any goal of the spirit. They are nothing but vicious animals. They are greedy, self-indulgent, predatory dollar chasers…”

    The U.N.’s thirst for power and global leadership is paved with environmental accords, pacts and treaties. In this, they are the wolf in sheep’s clothing and we should be weary. Any granting of authority to the U.N. threatens a nation’s sovereignty. Of course, the U.N. isn’t alone in this, for example, local governments exert control over individuals or communities with things like “environmental corridors” that prevent citizens from developing or even living on their own land, and all for the sake of “conservation.”

  2. wien1938 says:

    I wouldn’t say that the worst offender is the UN but rather that the UN and its accompanying bureaucracy is akin to a repository for all those “anti-establishment” hopes. It is more like PC-Central than a dangerous body.
    The UN is ultimately limited by its lack of independence (territory, finances and the good old fallback – lack of an army).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: