The Eco-Nazi Movement

Vic Biorseth, http://www.CatholicAmericanThinker.com

The term Eco-Nazism actually describes two related movements, one involving those who say "It’s the economy, stupid," and those who prefer to say "It’s the ecology, stupid." Both identify giant, global problems and supply giant, global solutions for them, if only those of us who are a little skeptical would just shut up and listen to them. The eco-related problems-of-the-moment are always described as emergency problems with potential catastrophic ramifications, with time too limited to allow old fashioned scientific studies, but with giant, overarching, global-scale plans somehow already in place to deal with them.

Some percentages of these problems involve invented straw-man villains designed to frighten the voting population and allow heroic, rescuer-politicians to ascend to office and save the poor helpless masses from eco-doom.

But, what did we hear from the Eco-Nazi quarter? Price gouging! Those dirty, evil Big Oil companies are gouging the public! Which should not be a surprise, because, as any Eco-Nazi will tell you, that is precisely what you may expect evil Capitalist exploiters to do. And, of course, in the overwhelmingly Marxist mind of our SLIMC¹ , which is therefore quite simple and predictable, there exists on this Earth no evil Capitalist exploiter entity to equal our despicable and thoroughly demonized Big Oil industry.

As soon as the prices went up, just as predictable as the next sunrise, it was once again ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again time, as every single Leftist in office anywhere demanded, in unison, immediate official government investigations into Big Oil price gouging practices. Just as under the Carter administration when OPEC put the squeeze on the world, for the chief benefit of the House of Saud. Just as every single other time, without exception, and it is therefore imminently predictable that the outcome of all the investigations will be exactly the same as it was in every other single case: there was no oil company price gouging. independent station owners compete with each other, and sometimes some of them, individually, gouge, or price-fix or do illegal things regarding price; they are independent enough to do that, and it has nothing to do with the oil companies.

I think it bears repeating: every time we have ever had a significant across the board price increase at the gas pump, investigations into oil company price gouging have been called for and done, and in every single case, without even one single exception, no oil company price gouging was ever found. Yet, every time, it is universally assumed by the Left and reported by the SLIMC¹ to the American public that Big Oil is again gouging the public with jerked up prices. In the Leftist Eco-Nazi view, it is good to keep the public unhappy and provide them with a Capitalist scapegoat-target. We are about to go through this thoroughly boring process once again. Every single time (I predict, including this time) Liberal and Conservative legislators and executives have actually legislated new anti-Big-Oil-company-price-gouging laws with major publicity and hoopla. Nobody in public office wants to be seen as soft on Big Oil. Number of Big Oil companies ever convicted on any of these anti-gouging laws: Zero. It just doesn't happen. This is show-biz politics. Meanwhile, the SLIMC¹ , which is, of course, thoroughly Eco-Nazi, will be loudly blowing the obscene profits trumpet as usual. To the Left, the term corporate profit is never to be used without connection to the word obscene; it's a rule. And the one they're currently publicly squealing about is identified as Obscene Big Oil Corporate Windfall Profits. Fluctuating world market per-barrel oil prices, set in Rotterdam, have just given Big Oil a spike in revenue (interpreted by the media to be profit) that is officially "News Reported" to be, first, of course, obscene, and second, unneeded, and therefore we need some quickie legislation to confiscate it, see?

QUESTION: What, exactly, is a Windfall Profit?

ANSWER: It is not an accounting term. As near as I can figure, it's the exact opposite of a Windfall Loss, which is a term that is strictly censored and not ever to be used by any member of the SLIMC¹ under pain of immediate expulsion.

An example of a Windfall Loss might be the extreme damage or loss of over 167 oil rigs to hurricane Katrina out in the Gulf of Mexico. Many of them actually sank out of sight in thousands of feet of water. Very, very costly, yet the whole notion of these and other losses, including severely damaged and shut down refineries, are quickly glossed-over where they are not outright religiously censored by the Eco-Nazi movement. To the Eco-Nazi, there definitely are Windfall Profits but there is no such thing as a Windfall Loss.

The Eco-Nazi will never, ever consider Corporate realities such as Capital Investment, and Capital Risk, even when a really significant risk is actually realized. The Eco-Nazi only speaks of obscene profits, and is not even prepared to speak of any such thing as a profit margin or a business expense. If you smell an ulterior motive or another agenda, go to the head of the class. Windfall Profits have nothing to do with real accounting. It's all part and parcel to the underlying Leftist goal of schmoozing the public into the belief that the sole purpose of business - all business - should be for the public benefit and/or the state benefit, which are portrayed to be one and the same thing. Therefore, corporate profit is highlighted and demonized in the public perception to strengthen and popularize the notion that business should always be more strongly regulated, if not completely nationalized.

And they got a wonderful opportunity to rip Big Oil when the Exxon CEO retired for some $400,000,000 during the period when Exxon profits were up, and so were pump prices. Wow; what an opportunity. Time to call in the official Commissar of Needs to declare to all, officially, that Taylor doesn't need his agreed retirement, and it therefore should be confiscated. After all, he doesn't need it, remember? The lofty atmosphere of large corporation CEO-ship is completely unfamiliar to me, but I know that this golden parachute or whatever you call it was agreed to ahead of time by all parties concerned, and the Eco-Nazis were not involved and had nothing to say about it. Why should they have anything to say about it now? Who appointed them Commissar of Needs?

It's easy for you and me, at our level, to say something idiotic, like, nobody needs that much money. But, of course, that's beside the point. You have prepared, with your employer and/or your financial institution(s) and/or the Social Security administration for your retirement. Should I, or anyone, a day after your retirement, be able to make any new binding declaration or judgment regarding whether you need and whether you get your agreed retirement?

Regardless of all the Eco-Nazi and SLIMC¹ produced gee-whiz computations on Taylor's package, that it represents X thousand dollars per hour worked, or perhaps Y dollars for every man, woman and child, the bottom line is, Taylor’s seemingly huge retirement would not effect the pump price of gas by even one cent. Not even a penny. As far as I'm concerned, he made a better deal for himself than I did; God bless him, and may he spend it in peace and good health.

Bottom line, with pump prices for regular around $2.65 to $2.85, oil companies only make something less than nine cents on the gallon at the pump. Despite Eco-Nazi claims to the contrary, that's far less than the Federal tax on gas, and less than the State tax on Gas, and, most likely, less than any county or other entity tax in your neighborhood, if you have one where you live. Out of all that money, only eight point something cents goes to the oil company. And the Eco-Nazi would have that reduced. Doesn't it figure? Look at Defense, for instance. The smallest piece of the budget pie, and the Libs would like nothing more than to reduce it in order to supplement the largest and least productive, least effective and most wasteful part of the budget. Many industries operate at a much, much higher profit margin than Big Oil, but you'll never hear about that from the SLIMC¹ .

The real scoop on constant dollar gas prices

In actual consumer buying power, meaning, in constant dollars, just about everything, including food, has gone up faster, and more, than oil, over any given time period. But oil is especially singled out and publicly demonized by the Left. Later we'll talk about how proven reserves of just about everything go up over time, not down, and how we're not really running out of anything important, despite opposing Eco-Nazi claims. Right now let's just talk about gas, in constant dollars.

In 1955 a gallon of regular gas cost around 40 cents.

In pure purchasing power, a 1955 dollar was worth approximately $7.40 in 2006 dollars, accounting for about 740% inflation over those 56 years. And, 740% of 40 cents is $2.96.

I just filled up yesterday, with more costly lead free and more highly refined regular at a rate of $2.669 per gallon. Proving that the actual consumer cost of gas has not gone up since 1955. In point of fact, it has gone down.

If you're in my age group then you can remember back then when you could actually buy something for a penny, and there was such a thing as a five and dime store, and you got service and sometimes a prize for your 40 cents a gallon at the gas pump. That was then, and this is now. over that time span, of course, proven world reserves of oil have gone up, as they always do, and likely always will, even despite the best efforts of ten thousand or so Sadam Hussiens.

The following world resource information can be seen in another light in the Population Problem page. In 1968, Dr. Paul Ehrlich, one of the most widely recognized and lionized among all of TTRSTF⁴ , wrote his hugely popular "Population Bomb" containing all sorts of scary predictions of doom for all of mankind and the entire planet due to limited resources, unchecked human population growth and the already starving populations in underdeveloped lands. He elevated his perceived population problem to an actual bomb. He took strong issue with the lack of massive government plans to deal forcefully with the human population problem and reduce it.

Proving that Nazi philosophy was still alive, he argued strongly against Family Planning, in which families make decisions regarding their own family size, in favor of government imposed decisions regarding family size. I'm not making this up. The book opens with the statement that the battle to feed all of humanity is over, falsely implying, first, that it was a battle, and second, that it was already lost.

His whole silly Eco-Nazi premise rested on the notion that there are too many people, there is too little food, too little of other needed resources, too much pollution and contamination, and we are thus residing on a dying planet. See? It was a best seller, and the whole thing was largely bought by the SLIMC¹ , hook, line and sinker. But, as the dates passed, none of his dire predictions came to pass. Every single prediction proved false. No exceptions. No food riots in America, no famine, no pestilence, none of the things he attributed to increased number of human beings on Earth, except the increased number of human beings on Earth.

Economist Paul Simon challenged Ehrlich's rather stupid claims, largely to no avail. Ehrlich had publicly offered an even money bet that England would no longer exist by the year 2000; Simon tried to take him up on it, but Ehrlich backed down and shut up about it. I notice today that England is still with us; apparently the population problem there wasn't really bad enough to do them all in.

Then Simon made a public open offer of a bet regarding "our precious resources" availability, which were theoretically dwindling, and being consumed by our population problem, which was theoretically booming, over any ten year span, and got Ehrlich's interest up. Simon's $10,000 bet was that the challenger could pick any one or ten or hundred commodities, including oil, food, grain, anything at all, and the ten-year closing time of the bet. Here is how he worded the offer:

"This is a public offer to stake $10,000, in separate transactions of $1,000 or $100 each, on my belief that mineral resources (or food or other commodities) will not rise in price in future years, adjusted for inflation. You choose any mineral or other raw material (including grain and fossil fuels) that is not government controlled, and the date of settlement."

Ehrlich and two Eco-Nazi colleagues jumped at it, saying they would "accept Simon's astonishing offer before other greedy people jump in." Later, after loosing, Ehrlich would claim that he "reluctantly" accepted after coaxing and having his arm twisted. Yeah, right. For reasons I'll never understand, considering that a world food shortage was his biggest perpetrated Scientistic myth, Ehrlich and chums chose five metals: copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten, over the ten year period.

Any real economist who knew his topic would know the stupidity of that choice, because metals have increased in proven reserves even more than other commodities. In fact, the price of metals has been consistently falling throughout all of human history. It would be an unusual year indeed when any of those metals had a price spike big enough to cause Simon to loose any part of this bet. But these were not economists; they were Eco-Nazis.

Importantly, the bet stipulated that the commodities not be controlled by any government. In a free market economy, price floats with the market and is automatically determined by the laws of supply and demand. When government controls the market place, prices must be fixed by the government.

At settling time, September 1990, not only had the sum of the prices fallen, but the price of each individual metal had fallen. Ehrlich and chums were the ones whose wallets were $10,000 lighter, and Simon was the one whose wallet was that much heavier. And Eco-Nazi Ehrlich was the one who was blubbering and slobbering and crying in his beer about how it was that a feller could loose a bet and still be right, by golly. It is a defining characteristic of TTRSTF⁴ that they can never, ever, admit to being wrong, about anything. Scientism is always absolutely certain of it's positions. Men like Ehrlich cannot change course; they simply don't know how to do that. They are always certain; even when they are so obviously and certainly wrong, they are still certain. For them, there is and always will be an exploding world population problem, a finite, dwindling world resource supply problem, an increasing pollution problem, and, perhaps most importantly, Capitalist exploiters to be dealt with.

Simon tried to make the bet again; Ehrlich declined, still publicly claiming to have been right, even after loosing the bet. In his opinion, the price of those metals will eventually go up, one of these years, or decades, or centuries. Simon was just lucky, see? And, Eco-Nazi Ehrlich, of course, remains the darling of all the Lefties; his truly dumb population problem theories are probably still held in high esteem at your nearest college or university. There's an Eco-Nazi born every minute.

Where does this kind of thinking come from?

These days, mostly from higher education, and from long periods of immersion in almost exclusively Leftist American academia, which has become a seedbed for Eco-Nazi -ism.

Once upon a time, an individual man had to personally do every single task necessary for his own survival and well-being. Beginning almost if not immediately, specialization was born, in which some men produced certain resources or services for themselves and for others, and cooperated to enjoy other resources and services provided by other men. This was the cornerstone of economics, called economic cooperation. Over time, specialization gets better, and better, and better. Resources and services and possibilities are thought about, studied, found, invented, developed, polished and presented in ever increasing quantities and qualities - and it is all done competitively. It's a natural thing.

It is, in my estimation, a natural system. The function of this natural system is to produce, through free and open competition, ideas, resources and services, in ever greater quantities, qualities and timeliness, to suite changing demand. Whenever you consider the introduction of a change into a functioning system, you need to first ask yourself whether the proposed change will:

1. help the function of the system,
2. hinder the function of the system, or
3. change the function of the system to be something else.

In most cases, natural systems, being natural, should be left alone.

I have elsewhere said, and it bears repeating, that clouded and non-critical thinking in high places today stems from the advance of Secularism, and gains support from the near global acceptance of Secularism's most recognized "thinkers." Particularly, the three greatest contributors to world secularism.

It is my contention that Darwinism, Freudianism and Marxism are all psychic “viruses” and infections of the human intellect, which all operate, both individually and in concert with each other, to reduce reason and oppose the arrival at ultimate truth. They all oppose nature; they all seek to not allow nature to take its course; they all seek, dogmatically, to either answer all questions or eliminate all questions. They all seek to be the answer. They all feed and shelter the Eco-Nazi.

In promoting secularism, they all oppose objective truth and ultimate reality. Actual, pure secularism, we must remember, is not, has never been and can never be neutral. While most “secular” people are not pure secularists, but rather quasi-secularist, or semi-secularist, or even pseudo-secularists, any degree of secular thought or acceptance of secular doctrines and dogmas moves the mind toward relativism and the idea of relative, or variable, reality. But objective truth exists, and reality does not change, regardless of how any individual might feel about it or how many people might disagree with it.

Polls do not matter here. If a tree falls in the forest, of course it makes a sound; energy is released in the form of sound even when you and I are not there to hear it; the laws of physics do not depend upon the presence of man. That’s objective reality. But, as we shall see, time and time again, Darwinism, Freudianism and Marxism all try to define their own idealized reality. And to the degree that people’s thinking has been secularized, we can see that it has been clouded; they actually begin to wonder if the falling tree makes a noise when they’re not there, just because they’re not there.

The nature of Eco-Nazi faith

Atheism denies the existence of God, but secularism goes much farther. Secularism denies not only God, but the very idea of God; not only spirituality but the very idea of spirituality; not only the sacred, but the very idea of sacredness. Secularism accepts only the worldly view, and vehemently denies any other view, which means, of course, that it holds absolutely nothing to be sacred, and indeed denies even the very idea of sacredness itself. Now, most Americans - an overwhelming majority - call themselves, not secularists, but some variety of believers, mostly Christian or Jewish. But, in any discussion on what is and what is not sacred, many of them betray how secularism has invaded their own personal thinking.

Discuss the idea of the sacredness of human life, for example, and you will hear many of these Christians and Jews say that they feel that all life is sacred, and some of them will say that they feel that all life is equally sacred, and some of them will say that human life is less sacred than are some other forms of life. As if we had the ability - or the right - to determine what is sacred. As if we were gods. As if the sacred could be determined by popularity poll or something. This represents movement, whether conscious or unconscious, in the direction of Eco-Nazi thought. Are we still Christians and Jews? Do we still recognize, let alone obey, even the simplest, most fundamental teachings of monotheistic faith?

Secularism denies the existence of any objective truth or solid reality that is independent of the mind of man. Secularism uses very pretty words to deny this fact, and it talks objectivity, but it plays by another game plan. Darwinism, Freudianism and Marxism all promote perfect ideas that stand on nothing other than their own alleged perfection. They all dogmatically seek to censor any evidences or viewpoints that oppose their own assumed correctness and perfection. They oppose real objectivity, but not openly, because denial of the existence of objective truth, of reality, is, of course, nothing but pure nonsense. Such secular opposition to hard truth must always be camouflaged, but it always exists. The true secularist and/or Eco-Nazi cannot accept any objective truth that is independent of the mind of man; it’s against their religion.

Darwinism, Freudianism and Marxism broke the ground. They laid a foundation. It is a foundation of straw. Nevertheless, once you accept secularism, you are on the way to becoming an Eco-Nazi. General public acceptance of any political or idealized “truth” leads to the creation, promotion and acceptance of others from the same source, without any proofs or evidences. They simply become axioms, or givens; i.e., They couldn’t say it on TV if it were not true.

Thus we see more and more Eco-Nazi “naturalists” who claim to be committed to preserving (which usually means controlling) what they like to call “our” environment, but who will not or cannot ever simply leave nature alone or allow nature to take its course, or be natural.

Thus we see complete or near complete scientific, medical, political and public acceptance of the idea of a “proven” relationship between HIV and AIDS, even in the complete absence of any supporting empirical evidence for the theory, other than very weak statistical evidence. And even where all possible statistical combinations are available in large numbers for observation, including huge numbers of AIDS patients without HIV, and huge numbers of HIV positives who do not ever get AIDS. Only one violation of the theory should be enough to disprove it, yet the thousands that exist do not disprove it, to the secularist, or to the Eco-Nazi. Once accepted, it becomes part of the perceived wisdom, building ever higher upon the foundation of straw.

If there were no other reason for opposing secularism than this one, that it opposes the ultimate arrival at truth, this reason alone should be enough to inspire adamant opposition to secularism and Eco-Nazi -ism everywhere.

Any “evidence” you see that comes out of a computer for anything really new cannot possibly be considered to be solid evidence of the truth of that new idea. It will balance your books better than your accountant; it will do many tricky accounting and mathematical tasks quite reliably, once the new software is proven and settled down. It’s an excellent research tool, an excellent library or repository for information, and it’s a great math cruncher and problem solver. Nowadays it’s also a really great writing tool.

Nevertheless, it “knows” nothing, it is not a scientist, and it proves absolutely nothing. But that’s not what the new breed raised on secularism and Eco-Nazi -ism would have you believe. Just watch TV and you will see computer graphics or computer model demonstrations that “prove” everything from life on Mars to linkages between HIV and AIDS to the evolution of species to the workability of star-wars weaponry to theories in global ecology and climate, and on, and on, and on. None of these demonstrations produce the simplest idea or thought, nor do they represent solid evidence of anything other than that they will produce whatever they are told to produce. What they were programmed to produce. Computers are great at continuously resolving repetitive problems with predictable variables; therefore they can do things like run manufacturing plants and control major defense systems, at least until there are major changes in the plants or the defense systems, and they do it so well that it makes us think that they are pretty smart, as we might expect a plant manager or a general to be smart.

But, as much as I hate to burst happy little bubbles, computers are as dumb as door stoppers. As evidence of the serious intellectual damage that secularism has done to us, once upon a time, very, very few educated people would be surprised by that statement; but today, a whole lot of very highly educated people are betting the farm solely on computer-model produced “evidences.” Popularized, normalized, mainstreamed, secularist Eco-Nazi thought has had it's effect. Eco-Nazi thought appears to be taking over.

Then there is the Capn's uncritical embracing of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in which the Eco-Nazi, Chicken-Little panicky cry was,

"The birdies are dieing!
The birdies are dieing!"

Which lead the Cap'n to declare that DDT, "which became for me a symbol of how carelessly our civilization could do harm to the world" and which "can be environmentally dangerous in tiny amounts" has been proven over time to be flagrantly false. It is not environmentally dangerous, even in large amounts. The birdies are not dieing, and never were. Indeed, People are dieing, of malaria, by the tens of millions, as a direct result of the international banning of DDT at the over-emotional prompting of silly twits like Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich and Cap'n Planet, along with a host of TTRSTF⁴ who uncritically and unreservedly and un-scientifically lent "expert" support to this ridiculous premise.

Then, the Cap'n weasel-worded his Eco-Nazi condemnation of Agent Orange (Dioxin), as "the suspected cause of chromosomal damage and birth defects" with, of course, no reference and no evidence. And, again, on yet another topic, time has shown us, what, exactly? That if a hundred men swam a couple of laps in it, one or two of them might get a rash, maybe. And that you probably shouldn't drink too much of it; that's about it.

Then there was his Eco-Nazi Love Canal fiasco, in which he panicked practically a whole neighborhood into pulling up and moving out of a perfectly safe area, at great financial loss, because nobody wanted to buy the theoretically "contaminated" properties, and so forth. Based on what, exactly? Based on environmental gossip repeated, amplified, magnified, politicized and broadcast by a typical Marxist ends-justify-the-means liar, for his own political advancement. The whole story proved how an area could become legally and/or politically "contaminated" in the complete absence of any actual serious or health-problematic contamination. Reality here is what the Eco-Nazi makes it.

In the 80s, Love Canal became, or was made into, a major national and even international political issue. It involved a neighborhood built on and around an old chemical waste dump site, whose inhabitants were panic stricken by wild, and false, stories of terrible contamination and health risk. The whole populace was economically devastated and demoralized, because they felt they had to move, and after all the negative publicity, no one in their right minds would buy the homes and businesses and property they had invested in for so many happy normal years. They were evacuated and relocated at great state expense and personal cost; and all over a wrong conclusion.

Now we are told that there is no health risk at Love Canal whatever, and never was. Too late. Algore sponsored the “Superfund” law over this issue, which has already cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and has produced absolutely no increased public health or safety in return. The complete media silence on this issue is deafening. Cap'n Planet Algore, of course, was too busy for comment, otherwise occupied, and off to his next disaster. Being an Eco-Nazi means never having to say you're sorry.

Julian Simon wrote another book, this one, The Ultimate Resource 2 (Revised Edition), Princeton, showed, with, unlike all the Leftist and Eco-Nazi doomsayers, heavy footnoting and sourcing, that all of our natural resource problems and all of our "human" problems, and every identifiable trend in material human welfare, is and has been, improving. Which is quite a statement. And it's very well documented. If you're really interested in the real environment, you need to get this book; it's an eye opener. According to this exceptionally well documented and quite positive and optimistic work, barring any unforeseen cosmic event, or the coming of the Lord, a thousand years from now man will be far better off than he is now. Which, come to think of it, seems the natural, common sense and intuitive or knee-jerk thought. After all, it seems a safe bet that we are better off now than were folks a thousand years ago.

Today, lots of scientists say that the globe is warming; lots of other scientists say that it is not. Perhaps more of them say that it is, and some empirical evidence indicates that it has slightly warmed over the last century, with use of extremely limited measuring tools over most of that time. It is an extremely difficult thing to take some average temperature across the surface of the whole globe, was likely impossible when such recording began, and is quite difficult and not totally reliable even today.

At any rate, the important fact is, there is no scientific consensus here. Many scientists point to geological evidence of past and on-going cycles of global warming and cooling; many other scientists appear to studiously avoid that topic, at least in public. Some few scientists feel (or, subjectively conjecture) that current global warming trends are caused by the activities of man. Most scientists disagree with that feeling.

And that's where we stand. We are not discussing any proven scientific theory here, or anything above some conflicting hypotheses and subjective conjectures with no heavy scientific community consensus on any position. Despite how many Journals or Organizations may be able to come up with a hundred or a thousand or whatever signatures favoring one position or another, and regardless of any polls taken and/or publicized. This is still where the scientific issue stands. Science has not yet stooped to the point of deciding empirical fact by vote, although it may sometimes appear that we are headed in that direction.

Although that may be an accurate statement of where the scientific issue stands, that is not what your children are being taught. Just ask them. Nor does it accurately describe the position of the SLIMC¹ . Just watch a little TV. There is a kind-of, sort-of "greenhouse" warming from the very presence of our atmosphere, due to reflection of solar energy back from the bottom of clouds, which are composed of water rather than the greenhouse gases in question. Greenhouse gases do not act as any sort of blanket and they do not trap heat. The most that can be said of them is that they might very slightly delay the transfer of heat away from the Earth. Despite any theories touted by any Eco-Nazi recruited members of TTRSTF⁴ , this heat transfer operates equally efficiently in both directions. The notion that carbon dioxide (CO₂) or any other gas acts as an insulating blanket around the Earth is just an Eco-Nazi myth. The notion that it somehow re-radiates infrared or other radiation is just another Eco-Nazi myth. The notion that CO₂ is a pollutant is an absolutely stupid Eco-Nazi myth. The Earth could do with a whole lot more of that kind of pollution.

The only analogy that can be made, and it's a poor one, between our atmosphere and the glass in a greenhouse involves all those gas molecules between the surface of the Earth and outer space. Because of them, there is not as much direct heat transfer from the Sun to the Earth as there is from the atmosphere to the Earth, and in the other direction, there is not as much direct heat transfer from the Earth to outer space as there is from the atmosphere to outer space. Gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared and other radiation, in both directions, and become excited, or, hot. And they pass it on. They do not act as any sort of efficient convection barrier. The very most they can do is slightly slow down heat transfer, by absorbing one form of energy and giving off another. They do not "re-radiate" any infrared or other radiation they have absorbed, because it was converted into other forms of kinetic and potential energy and is therefore no longer available for "re-radiation." Re-radiation is just a silly Eco-Nazi day-dream. Nevertheless, since this is all there is that slows down heat transfer from the Earth to outer space, this is what we will hereinafter refer to as the greenhouse effect.

Now, let's talk about the various gases that bring about this greenhouse effect. At least 70% of greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, and at least another 20% comes from other forms of water found in clouds, ranging from actual droplets to ice crystals. Some estimates put water alone, in its various forms, at 95% of all greenhouse-effect causing atmospheric gases. Leaving something between 5% and 10% to account for all the rest. These are composed of, besides the Eco-Nazi demonized CO₂, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and various other "minor" greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide comprises less than 0.04% of all greenhouse-effect causing gases. Just in case you missed it, that's four one-hundredths of one percent. Some of the more Eco-Nazi leaning among TTRSTF⁴ point out that different wave-lengths of radiation are reacted to differently by different greenhouse-gas molecules, with differing levels of excitement, and assign a higher greenhouse effect level to CO₂ for that reason. A little shaky; but we'll leave that alone for now. The important thing to note is that a mere one percent change in humidity can have a much, much higher greenhouse effect than can any doubling or tripling of carbon dioxide. So, water is easily the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide is arguably the least important.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't know which, all these kinds of gas molecules are not distributed evenly throughout the Earth's atmosphere. If you want to measure them, you are faced with a lot of difficulties, because the results of the measurement effort will depend on such things as where you are, what time it is, what calendar date it is, which way the wind is blowing, the relative humidity, what the tides are doing, what's happening in the upper atmosphere, solar phenomena, and on, and on. Humidity is key, and humidity varies radically from mountain to plain, from rain forest to desert, from ocean to giant land-mass, from pole to equator, from hour to hour, and so forth. Some areas of the Earth are regularly covered by clouds; some are regularly quite clear; most have mixed cloud cover. Some day, perhaps when we have enough operating satellites and/or other instruments devoted to the purpose and properly distributed around the world, it might be possible to take a whole world snapshot accurately showing atmospheric gas composition and distribution, or even just, simple, average world surface temperature, for the whole Earth at a given fixed moment in time; but that day has yet to come.

So, in the complete absence of any certain world-average temperatures on any given two days, let alone on any long series of days, what, exactly, is the empirical, scientific basis for the Eco-Nazi claim of global warming doom? Wait - don't tell me - let me guess: It's all carefully constructed computer model output, right?

Right.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is not a pollutant; indeed, it is an absolutely required building block of life. Animals and human beings breathe in, as a required nutrient, oxygen-laden air, and exhale CO₂-laden air. Plants breathe in, as a required nutrient, CO₂-laden air, and exhale oxygen-laden air. Commercial agricultural greenhouses purposefully generate CO₂ to dramatically improve food crop yield. CO₂ is absolutely required for the continued life of all plant-based eco-systems on Earth, from phyto-plankton to rain forests to your front lawn. The Eco-Nazi claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant or is otherwise undesirable is just plain silly.

The whole Eco-Nazi Notion of Global Warming Doom due to the Horrible Actions of Man is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence of a warming climate change of about one degree over the last century, and a scientifical guessed-imate that man-produced CO₂ has increased from something like 0.028% to something like 0.038% of so-called greenhouse gasses since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. (Again, for the fraction-challenged, that's a two one-hundredths of one percent increase.) So, a plausibly guestimated 75% increase in CO₂ resulted in an increase of only 0.02% of greenhouse-effect causing gases. And what they mean by man-caused CO₂ is not that we all continue to exhale about as many times as we inhale; they mean that we produced too much CO₂ from our factories and cars and machines. I don't think they even looked too closely at our agricultural industry, air-guns and air-tools, or at colas and other carbonated beverages, and so forth.

However, I did read some time back that the Japanese had launched a multi-billion dollar government project to study cattle flatulence as a source of global-warming CO₂, which I personally found to be hysterically funny. In fact, for awhile, I was absolutely out of control. Real live scientists were being paid by their government to find ways to keep cows from farting, or at least cut down on the farts, for the good of the ultra-delicate and super-fragile poor helpless little Earth. Now, the Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, Free Press, showed, with excellent methodology and quite heavy documentation, that Orientals are supposed to be, generally, testably smarter than the rest of us, and when I read it, I believed it. But then I read about this serious Japanese cow fart study, and after I stopped laughing and regained a little control of myself, I realized that these people have got to be as dumb as Democrats. The Japanese government had gone Eco-Nazi; perhaps even Ultra-Eco-Nazi. This was not exactly a mark of genius. As I imagined a major network TV Crocumentary on the Japanese study, I could almost hear the voice of a Rather or a Cronkite, deeply intoning foreboding messages of the coming flatulence warming doom of Earth, in all seriousness.

Bottom line here, the globe appears to be warming. So what? It's not like it's the first time. Geological and even historical records show repeated, irregular climatic cycles of warming and cooling. Big deal. Eco-Nazi theory claims we are into a man-caused warming cycle of doom, with absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to back that theory up. All we have as evidence is all the hot CO₂ coming out of Cap'n Planet Algore and the gas out of the asses of Japanese cows to induce us to follow-the-leaders, as they take yet another flying leap, off of yet another cliff, straight at yet another wrong conclusion. I don't know about you, but I ain't taking that leap. An Earth-saving plan of equal effectiveness that would do less harm, would be to dig a giant hole in the ground, label it Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and begin shoveling American tax dollars into it.

The Eco-Nazi movement has vastly over-emphasized the importance and significance of man in the universe, and has vastly under-emphasized the size and resilience of the Earth. If the globe really is warming, there is not a single thing any of us or all of us can do about it. The globe is going to do whatever the globe is going to do. Get over it.

---

Side Note: Here's an "about the movie" quote from Cap'n Planet Algore's upcoming Eco-Nazi scare-the-people and let-me-be-the-hero movie, titled, "an inconvenient truth:"

So. Ten years. Mark your calendars. Eco-Nazi -ism has spoken, again.

The Cap'n joins the Ding-Bat False Prophet Club and takes another seat of honor, alongside such notables as Paul Ehrlich and Rachel Carson, and although, like them, none of his prophesies will come true, he will get richer, and he will always bask in the warm adulation and hero-worship of the intellectually-challenged silly-assed Left. Algore amply provides his own proof of the observation that he is, simultaneously, highly educated, certifiably intelligent, and, quite obviously, stupid. Either that, or he's evil.

His new movie will teach you how to calculate your personal carbon dioxide footprint and then teach you how to reduce it, see? (You could, of course, simply stop exhaling, but, no matter how good that might be for the Capn's warped and twisted view of the Earth, it would not be particularly good for you.)

Pray for the souls of the millions of people who will die of malaria this year thanks to the political propaganda and concerted efforts of these quite dangerous people. And always remember that words have consequences.

---

Whole industries and the whole economy have been modified to eliminate and replace, less efficiently, such things as Styrofoam and Freon, all with absolutely no effect whatsoever on the environment that was supposed to be corrected. (We still have the same old ozone-holes; we’re still alive.)

The “ozone hole” was, and is, another Eco-Nazi myth with absolutely no empirical basis. Within the first ten minutes of the discovery of anomalies in the Earth’s ozone layer, Cap'n Planet Algore joined the newly sprouted crop of instant experts, lead the Eco-Nazi charge, and predicted the doom of all mankind if we didn’t immediately eliminate Styrofoam, CFC’s in aerosol cans, and Freon in refrigerating and air conditioning systems. And the nation went along for another panic ride, lots of new law and “voluntary” industrial restraints, at terrific cost to private industry, causing dramatically more expensive and far less efficient cars and refrigerators among other things, and all of this despite the fact that there exists not one single shred of evidence that any of this was going to have any effect whatsoever on the ozone layer, or even that there ever was anything wrong with the ozone layer in the first place. The ozone holes behave today no differently than they behaved then, which is to say, they are equally, if not more, menacing to mankind. Predicted increases in skin cancer didn’t come about; rates seem to stay the same or slightly go down. Surprise.

Another wrong conclusion; but, Cap'n Planet Algore, self-anointed Commander-In-Chief of the Eco-Nazi Movement, was already off to his next eco-disaster. Real scientists should know that a new scientific discovery does not mean that the thing discovered, such as the ozone holes, is new, but only that our knowledge of it is new. The Eco-Nazi and the practitioner of Scientism are not smart enough to know that. Or, they have an ulterior motive.

Bottom line here, scientists are now regularly observing ozone-layer anomalies and holes of continually varying size and shape and position. So what? There is no evidence that it hasn't been going on forever, and no evidence that we, personally or collectively, caused it. Eco-Nazi theory claims we are deep into a man-caused ozone-depleting cycle of doom, with absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to back that theory up. Yet, solely on the testimony of Eco-Nazi -ism, we are again expected to follow-the-leaders as they take yet another flying leap, off of yet another cliff, straight at yet another wrong conclusion. I don't know about you, but I ain't taking that leap. An Earth-saving plan of equal effectiveness that would do less harm would be to dig a giant hole in the ground, label it Ozone Hole Reduction Plan, and begin shoveling American tax dollars into it.

Again, the Eco-Nazi movement has vastly over-emphasized the importance and significance of man in the universe, and has vastly under-emphasized the size and resilience of the Earth. If the ozone really is depleting, there is not a single thing any of us or all of us can do about it. The ozone is going to do whatever the ozone is going to do. Get over it.

The contention of Eco-Nazi -ism here is that acid rain kills trees and even whole forests, and acidifies lakes and streams causing massive fish-kills. It's all bull. There exists no credible scientific evidence to support these assertions. Back in the 80s, the SLIMC¹ treated us all to TV shots of devastated forests in mountainous Appalachian regions, night after night, all attributed to acid rain. And now, every one of them has been clearly attributed to various, natural, and periodic insect infestations, and to simple old age, both of individual trees and of whole stands. Both trees and forests do get old and die, and types of forest do change over time.

But the Eco-Nazi contention was that acid rain, caused by factory smokestack and automobile pollution from hundreds or even over a thousand miles away was causing it all. Factories in the mid-west were being blamed for dying trees in Eastern states. Industry, particularly utility companies and the auto industry, were regulated and legislated into scrubbing nitrous oxides and sulfur compounds out of smokestacks and exhaust pipes, at great cost and for questionable benefit. It certainly helped reduce general pollution, but the effect on acid rain ranged between minimal and non-existent, because man-caused acid rain is, and always has been, a very minimal and exclusively local phenomenon. No smokestack in Ohio ever caused any deforestation anywhere other than in very close proximity to that smokestack.

And even very close to the source of the pollution, the most likely cause of any pollution-killed tree is another local pollutant, such as ozone, which is considerably more likely to do harm to a tree than acid rain. Ozone really does kill plants, as has been demonstrated in industrial areas all over the world. But, ozone is not acid rain.

If you are an Eco-Nazi, you're not going to like this; but, the truth will set you free.

The sulfur and nitrogen compounds that contribute to the acid in acid rain are produced naturally by the decay of organic matter all over the world. Today it is conservatively estimated that about 50% of the total is produced naturally by organic decomposition, and the estimate goes up to more than 90% when you add in all the natural emanations from the Earth itself. These come out of volcanoes, hot springs, fumaroles and even ocean spray. A surprisingly large amount comes from nitrogen fixed by lightning. Any and all of these natural causes can and do act to lower the PH factor of suspended local rain water droplets by several points.

(PH is the scale for measuring acidity vs. alkalinity, and ranges from 0 to 14. A PH of 7 (distilled water) is neutral. Below 7 is acid; above 7 is alkaline.)

Burning fossil fuel for commercial and domestic purposes contributes to sulfates, nitrates and other pollutants in the atmosphere. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by well over 40%, but nitrogen emissions have somewhat increased from increased oil burning. Industry and transportation produces other pollutants, including hydrocarbons, which may contribute to acid rain.

Whether natural or man-induced, whatever acid rain falls in a given neighborhood was generated in that same neighborhood. You can't blame someone else who is many miles away for acid rain that falls on your property. Sulfur burned in England does not contribute to acid rain in Sweden, for instance. That's just another Eco-Nazi myth.

Although the Eco-Nazi would probably prefer to not talk about it, there is such a thing as a naturally acidic lake. Go to Yellowstone park and you'll see some that have a PH of 2.0 to 3.0. Lakes in rain forests, swamps, and in land composed of peat may have PH of 3.5 to 5.0. And, lakes in areas where siliceous or granite bedrock predominate will tend to be acidic. Furthermore, there is such a thing as a naturally dead lake, where the water is just too naturally acidic to support fish. Again, any measurable change in PH in a given lake that is truly attributable to rain is due to local conditions that produced the rain, whether it be acidic or alkaline.

Now, most of us would agree that many of the pollution controls mandated upon industry are good, and we would not like to see them undone, because the air is unquestionably cleaner now. However, the hurry up and spend billions legal rules imposed upon industry primarily to correct a non-existing acid rain problem should not be completely ignored by history.

Well, it's now twenty years since the Chernobyl disaster, and we have another hindsight opportunity to look at the wild scientistical predictions that were made back then, versus what actually happened, downwind, and everywhere. The Number Four Reactor at Chernobyl exploded on April 26, 1986, and the anti-nuclear movement was on it like a pit-bull on a Pekinese.

The Chernobyl disaster story carried within it a glorious and epic story of heroism that the world should not soon forget. When I first read of it, the words that touched my heart came from John 15:13, Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. I prayed that the Lord would see not their sins, but their glorious sacrifice, done that others might live, and that He might bless and welcome them into His Kingdom, but that His will be done. For no one made them lay their lives down; they did it knowingly and willingly, that others might live. These words and prayers and thoughts came roaring back on September 11, 2001, with the events in New York City. Then, the application was to those murdered, and particularly to all those firemen and responders who willingly went in there. And even more particularly to those who willingly went into the second tower, after the first one came down. May they all enjoy a very special place in the favor of our Lord.

But the "larger" Chernobyl news story the world seemed most interested in virtually eclipsed the heroic story out of existence, for all practical purposes. Within three days, TTRSTF⁴ from Greenpeace predicted that Chernobyl would cause over 10,000 cancer cases over a 20 year period within a 650 mile radius. Helen Caldicott, speaking for TTRSTF⁴ from Physicians for Social Responsibility predicted 300,000 cancers in 5 to 50 years and 1 million people affected by ailments from sterility to mental retardation and even on to menstrual problems and other unspecified health problems. Medical physicist Dr. John Gofman, one of TTRSTF⁴ from University of California-Berkeley, at an American Chemical Society meeting, predicted 1 million world-wide cancer cases, and 5 hundred thousand fatalities. Yep.

And most of us said, hey, that's science talking, man; we had better listen.

So, what's the real story, now that twenty years have passed? The UN sponsored a study conducted by an international team of 100 scientists to find out. Their report is titled "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts." According to the report, so far there have been some 4,000 thyroid cancer cases, mostly in children; from them, there have been nine fatalities, and all the others have recovered. Total deaths from the Chernobyl disaster: 50. Almost all of them were among the heroic rescue workers, and all of them died within months of the incident.

That's it.

Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Guardian (UK), and the other Eco-Nazi, anti-nuclear or environmental-whacko groups are now on record long enough for all objective observers to recognize their proven track record of bad science, false claims and failed prophesy. These people have a political agenda that is of far greater importance to them than science, or truth. And they are claiming, so far without any solid evidence, that the independent UN study somehow missed a half-million deaths, in the Ukraine alone. Right.

Ukrainian politicrats and aparachniks representing National Commission for Radiation Protection and the Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine, perhaps hoping to eventually get some government and/or Russian and/or UN money, are being quoted by Eco-Nazi environmental-whacko groups as saying “We’re overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the [UN] data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago.” Any actual evidence supporting these claims has yet to be actually seen by anyone.

The official Chernobyl death record stands at 50.

The 1979 incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, in which a small amount of radiation was released, and in which no one was injured, seemingly closed the door to the future of nuclear power in America. The disaster at Chernobyl would seem to have permanently sealed it. But, I submit, in the face of energy needs today, and in the historical safety record of the nuclear power industry, even including Chernobyl, the real disaster involves the damage done to the international psyche by the ravenous, anti-nuclear, Eco-Nazi SLIMC¹ and the howling propaganda of the Eco-Nazi, environmental-whacko movement.

Here are the facts that we ought to be calmly looking at. Nuclear power production has a better safety record, both in building plants, and in operating them, than any other type of power production. Take a look at dams, as an example. More people died in their construction, and more people died in their failures, when compared to nuclear power plants. And there is this: every time something of this magnitude happens, it becomes less likely to happen again. Design and system and procedure and human-error and other problems that lead to the failures at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and all nuclear facility accidents or incidents are well known throughout the industry. Designs and systems and procedures and human-overrides and redundant back-up systems have been put into place all over the world. Somebody has to tell the people about this, because the Eco-Nazi SLIMC¹

It's the same with almost everything that's big and expensive, especially if it's also dangerous. How many big oil spill disasters have we had since the Exxon Valdez disaster? None, discounting the Kuwait dumping by Sadam. Because ships are now built with strengthened and even multiple hulls to hold oil, and major design and procedure changes have been put into place to see that it doesn’t happen again. As time goes on, it gets less and less likely for major oil spills to happen, or for nuclear reactors to fail, or for the internet to crash, because over time more and more redundant preventative systems come on-line to keep the system functioning. No matter what the Eco-Nazi movement says, the world is every day improving and becoming a better and safer place to be.

Now, the world is an imperfect place, and things are always subject to go wrong. However, I submit that the Number Four Reactor explosion at Chernobyl represented a situation of a nuclear reactor failure of a scope and magnitude that was just about as bad as it could possibly get. You would almost have to try to make a nuclear reactor failure worse. It was, indeed, a horrible disaster for the workers and for the citizens in the area. But, please, let's not make it worse than it actually was. It was a local disaster in which huge numbers had to be evacuated, some thousands were sickened and fifty died, most of them very heroically. It is possible that more might have died if not for their self-sacrificial efforts, but it is not possible to accurately predict how many.

Some I have discussed this with remain convinced of the Eco-Nazi promoted possibility of a China Syndrome event, in which a melt-down gets so hot that it melts its way progressively through the crust of the Earth until it hits a natural gas or oil or water reservoir, and then causes an instant steam or other violent explosion, covering the whole Earth in a blanket of deadly radioactivity. Sigh. It ain't gonna happen. Its an Eco-Nazi myth. Reactors have a giant, massive floor that is poured beneath the reactor core. If the core melts down, it will contact this floor and spread out. Spreading out reduces critical mass, and cuts down the reaction, and the heat, and reduces the melt-down situation. If you listen uncritically to the predominantly Eco-Nazi SLIMC¹ and you watch a lot of movies, and put any stock into them, then these kinds of possibilities are just going to scare the hell out of you. It's a real problem. I'd love to tell you to talk to a physics professor, but, today, he might be one of Them, meaning, a real Eco-Nazi among all of TTRSTF⁴ , and he might even scare you more.

That's the real disaster, regarding nuclear power. Thanks to the Eco-Nazi movement, Public perception of nuclear power cleanliness, efficiency and safety has been shattered, and needs to be restored. The same people who scream about gas prices are the ones who support Eco-Nazi regulation or legislation prohibiting drilling in ANWAR and new platforms in the Gulf or Atlantic or Pacific, or, really, anywhere. Just as they adamantly oppose nuclear power, which happens to represent the absolutely cleanest and most efficient means of producing large quantities of electric power in existence.

Investors do not put their money into enterprises in order to kill people, especially themselves. Investors put their money at risk and buy stock in power companies so that they can get a safe return on their investment. The same Eco-Nazi goof-balls that irrationally despise Big Oil also despise Nuclear Power, and they also predominantly despise, guess what, Capitalism. What they really want is one of two things: Either move America from Capitalist Democracy to Socialism, or, turn the lights out.

I don't know about you, but I'll never submit to either possibility.

So, what does the Eco-Nazi really want?

With that, I think we're getting to the crux of the matter here. Everything the Eco-Nazi movement champions, sponsors, promotes and stands for seems to point in the direction of the ultimate failure of Americanism, or the American Ideal, and America's unique organization. Eco-Nazi -ism is far worse than being a mere dark and gloomy pessimism. At every turn, it shows a clear anti-humanitarian and even anti-human tendency. It views The World, exclusive of man, as being Natural and therefore Good, even if overly delicate and fragile and in need of constant attention. But it views Man as being somehow Unnatural and therefore Bad. Except, perhaps, for those very few elect who might properly take care of the super-fragile planet.

Which is about as depressing as it can get. It would seem to be hard to hold these feelings without hating yourself. What is most surprising to me about it is the fact that the Eco-Nazi is most typically a materialist, and therefore a Naturalist. If, as any true Naturalist would say, there is, only and exclusively, a Natural explanation for everything that exists, then, how can Man, or anything, possibly be Unnatural?

Nevertheless, the Eco-Nazi view of the economic problem involves the unlimited wants and needs of human beings, (of which there are far too many) versus the limited resources of the world (of which there is never enough.)

And the Eco-Nazi view of the ecological problem involves a wonderful, beautiful, natural World (without man) versus the unnatural, interfering, increasingly technical and polluting Mankind (which the natural world would be better off without.)

You, and almost everybody else, probably know a purist of some sort. Angling has its fly-fishermen; shooting has its small-gauge quail enthusiasts or small-bore varmint-ers; archery has its no-pulleys, no sights, stick-and-string devotees; what does the Eco-Nazi purist look like? We all - or, at least, a whole lot of us - really enjoy the rare opportunity to get way out in the boondocks once in awhile, away from civilization and deep into nature. Some of us like to pack in alone to some favored place, for a week, or a weekend or so. Most often, we either go in small groups, or for shorter trips. And, it's always good to come back home. Not for the Eco-Nazi purist. He would prefer to stay out there, not just because he loves the outdoors, but also because he hates mankind. He sees human beings as a cancer on the Earth; an infection within the nature that he thinks he loves. His perception of nature and the world and man has been warped, twisted and perverted, and he doesn't even know it.

And this negative view of man can lead to all sorts of rationalization and justification for anything opposed to man, ranging from contraception through abortion to euthanasia and even on into genocide, and war, just for the sake of war, because it kills lots and lots of people. Clearly it's an outlook opposed to the teaching of the Church, and of Eastern Orthodoxy, and of Judaism, and of Protestantism. Some adherents to Eco-Nazi -ism make exceptions for themselves and perhaps a select few, but they see virtually everyone else as, at the very least, inferior and in need of being controlled lest they further harm the world, which they are inclined by their very nature to do. Which seems a funny way to put it, since man is not supposed to have a nature or be natural, but there it is. Even if we put aside the purely negative and pessimistic view of the Earth, this view of man flatly opposes the common Western Culture ethos, to the point of being an anti-ethos.

Ethos - Schmeethos; what's the big deal about ethos?

So we are back to ethos again. The inner voice of either a well-formed or a malformed conscience guides the individual in his behavior. In a similar manner, the socially dominant cultural ethos of a whole people guides that whole people in its collective behavior. Judeo-Christianity tells man, in crystal clear language, how he is to treat God, creation, and fellow man. Although Eco-Nazi -ism is just one of many forces working to lower, disassemble or even destroy the Western Civilization ethos that is the cornerstone of the United States of America, it may well prove to be the most successful one. Eco-Nazi -ism is, precisely, an anti-Western ethos, and it seeks to absolutely eliminate and replace the dominant American foundational ethos. This is no drill.

The chief proponents of the Eco-Nazi movement are quite open about it, in their writing and their speech. Examples abound. The Major-Domo of this new anti-ethos is, of course, Cap'n Planet himself, Algore. Do not take him lightly. He actually attained the office of the Vice Presidency of the United States, and was a strong contender for the Presidency. To this day, millions of Americans actually favor him, and his ridiculous views. You can read his own words in his personal, anti-Capitalist, anti-establishment, Mien Kamph-like diatribe, "Earth In The Balance." In it, he questions the very nature of our civilization, which in his view causes a potential life-as-we-know-it ending environmental "crisis" rooted in multiple other crises, from an unresponsive political system to a dishonest economic system and on into a major philosophical blunder that is the cause of our individual as well as cultural dysfunction. See?

It should be apparent from any cursory comparison of the USA to any other country on Earth that if the USA is culturally dysfunctional, then the entire world could use a whole lot of that form of dysfunction.

Gore describes Capitalism as fatally flawed by being "blind." It theoretically sees only what the free market provides - food, cars, clothing, fuel and so on - but cannot see such things as clean air and water and the beauty of nature and so forth. Maybe he sees Capitalism as a Darwinian Blind Watchmaker or something. In the Eco-Nazi view, such things as the free market now provide would be more ecologically provided by the Leviathan State once the people were properly trained in a new philosophy and no longer part of a dysfunctional culture.

Shut up and get on the cattle car? Does he really know more and embody more wisdom than is contained in the entire culture he openly demonizes and seeks to replace, by any means necessary?

He would have us know that we are suffering, and headed for oblivion, and that we need him to save us from what we do not yet recognize, because we have not yet learned the nuances of his personal addiction theory, and family-dysfunction theory, and dysfunctional civilization theory. If only we knew. We are all mesmerized by Capitalism into an empty and inauthentic existence based on blind consumerism, which operates to consume the Earth and destroy the environment while spoiling us into a life built around the activity of shopping. Maybe he just doesn't get out much.

According to Algore, we live in an "inauthentic world of our own making." Authenticity, to the Cap'n, involves nature, and man, of course, is not natural. He juxtaposes the emptiness of our horrible, horrible industrial civilization against the fullness of the wonderful, wonderful natural world, which, in his view, industry always hinders and never helps. Nature and industry are so incompatible as to be mutually exclusive. And it's all our fault, apparently, for existing. Here's what he says about us:

He sees all that as bad, and he intends to put a stop to it. By training us. And ending our addictions. We need to stop denying our addiction and learn to "face our pain - feel it, think it, absorb it, own it." I swear, I'm not making this up. He even speaks of the flat out evil of Nazi and Communist totalitarian bureaucrats, and compares them and their acts to - our culture. He describes the horrors of The Camps to the horrors of Our Consumerism. He even uses terms such as "ecological Kristallnacht" to equate American consumerism to Nazi atrocity.

And then he goes on to describe the cure for all this dysfunction, and we see that it is his unique form of yet another totalitarianism. It's his cure for this "ungodly crisis" we've gotten ourselves into. He calls for "completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty five year period." But that's just for openers; our corrupt civilization must be completely reorganized, and "those institutions still mired in the past must be swept forward and changed." He openly describes a complete reorganization of our central organizing principles as necessary for Eco-Nazi salvation.

Not satisfied with ordering radical changes in our civilization and way of thinking - which is what is meant by reinventing government - he writes that we must even make a change in our essential character to suite him, and the necessary changes are to be "profound" and "wrenching." He said so. Read the book. He intends to change the nature of man.

The first few times I heard or read any of Gore's blather I wrote him off as a nut-burger who wanted to regulate and/or legislate the weather. As such, who could possibly take him seriously? As it turns out, a whole lot of people took him very seriously; he is a Leftist leader of national prominence, a major player in the Democratic Party and a political force to be reckoned with. Someone like this could actually come to power here. Don't write this off as just silliness. Eco-Nazi -ism has a huge and powerful following.

The SLIMC¹ picks up right where Gore leaves off; he is, of course, their darling. The Eco-Nazi movement seeks, by any means necessary, to change us into something else. Truth has no place in this agenda.

It's what's really behind the Leftist and Eco-Nazi demonizing of Big Business in general and Big Oil in particular. It's why when you hear the most current Eco-Nazi diatribe against drilling in ANWAR, it will be accompanied by pictures of beautiful snow-capped mountains, pristine streams and rugged forest lands, even though there is not a mountain or tree in sight, anywhere in ANWAR. But, the cry will be heard, that "The caribou will die! The caribou will die!" Even though oil wells in ANWAR will have no effect whatsoever on caribou. Just as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline had no effect on them, despite all those Eco-Nazi alarm cries.

It's why our Eco-Nazi SLIMC¹ censors stories about natural oil slicks that come from natural exposed oil deposits on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. Every time any tar-ball washes ashore anywhere, the always news-worthy Eco-Nazi claim is that some tanker must have dumped it, or some platform must have leaked it, and the story is never corrected. SLIMC¹ - inspired major scientific investigation into all sources of oil slicks has pointed to many, many natural sources, and absolutely no industrial sources, but, you didn't see that in the news, did you? Chalk it up as another mainstream media lie of omission.

Our ever increasingly redundant Power Grid through which utility companies share transmitted electricity and piped gas around the country presents an illustration of how Eco-Nazi - inspired regulation and legislation always seeks to hurt business. You might remember the deregulation event in relatively recent history. What you might not remember is that the only part of the consumer power delivery system that was deregulated was the price one company could charge another for product, when, for whatever reason, the purchasing company could not produce enough to meet demand. What was not deregulated was the price that could be charged to the consumer. So, there ensued multiple opportunities for power companies, acting as competitors, to hurt each other. When a power plant was down for whatever reason, alternative sources could charge them whatever they pleased, but the cost could not be passed along to the consumer. So, they were buying product at a higher price than they could sell it for. Let me put it this way: how long would you keep showing up for work if your employer stopped your paycheck, effective today?

If the deregulation had happened all along the delivery grid, including to the ultimate consumer, normal market prices of power would have gone down, across the board, because of the highly competitive nature of the business. More customers are the ultimate goal of all power companies, and you don't get more customers by charging more than your competitors for the same product. When all producing companies are in the same what-goes-around-comes-around boat, they tend to be more cooperative with competitors during difficult times to prevent brown-outs and black-outs, and, most especially, eventual loss of customers.

The Eco-Nazi movement wants you to think of Big Business as a ruling class in their projected image of social class warfare that they want you to believe is going on here. The Eco-Nazi will chant their "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" mantra at every public opportunity. What the Eco-Nazi doesn't understand is that the owners of Big Business are people like you and me. There are no classes here. Stockholders come in all varieties. An American citizen can be, all at the same time, a worker, a union member, a stock holder and even a landlord. Is he an exploiter? Is he richer? If you invest in anything from a 401K to a personal IRA to your employer's retirement plan, someone manages those funds, and odds are they are invested in Big Business, which makes you the Capitalist Exploiter always demonized by the Eco-Nazi movement. And, to the Eco-Nazi, you are even more horrible if you drive an SUV.

May God save us from the Eco-Nazi movement, or may He help us to save ourselves from it.

The Nature of The Truth.

Truth will always win out. Truth cannot be resisted forever. It is the nature of Truth to be denied and persecuted, but to remain the Truth. Truth cannot be buried, for very long. Truth will always come back.

We need to always be attendant to the Truth; we need to seek it, to not censor or hide it, but to find it, study it, profess it and always support it, and point it out to someone else. It is the only real source of freedom.

Those who hate the Truth seek to replace it with something else; they intend to replace it with something greater, but they can only replace it with something less. It seems that those who most strongly oppose Truth always seek to ascend to some throne of power and dominion. What they fear the most, whether consciously or unconsciously, is, precisely, He Who is the Truth.

The Crucifix is an enigmatic symbol of Truth; it represents a puzzle, and a serious dichotomy. God is, by definition, Love. And the Crucifix presents to us an image of Love, but - it is an image of Love that is nailed to a cross. There is a vitally important reason that Love was nailed to that cross. It is important to us individually, and collectively, and we need to meditate upon it. Nothing is more important.

Coming to Truth always involves overcoming resistance of some kind; it comes in different forms for different people, and is handled in as many different ways as there are people. No one can drag you, kicking and screaming, against your will, into Truth. You must come to it voluntarily; you must come to it; no one can do this for you. You must knock. You must seek. you must ask.

Seek the Truth. Find the Way. Live the Life.

=====

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; "Hover" the mouse over it just to see the simple interpretation.)

SLIMC¹ Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
GESGOEAEOT² Gradually, Ever So Gradually, Over Eons And Eons Of Time
PEWAG³ Punctuated Equilibrium's Wild-Assed Guess
TTRSTF⁴ Them There Real Scientifical-Type Fellers
TTRSPTF⁵ Them There Real Smart Perfesser-Type Fellers
TTRSJTF⁶ Them There Real Smart Journalistical-Type Fellers
SNRTACBT⁷ Surely No Right Thinking Adult Could Believe Today
STNSEACPB⁸ Surely Today No Serious Educated Adult Could Possibly Believe
WDN⁹ We Don't Know
BMDFP¹⁰ Baboons, Mongrel Dogs, Filthy Pigs and ...
HBAACOTE¹¹ Human Beings Are A Cancer On The Earth
ACLU¹² Anti-Christian Litigation Union
FLORMPORIF¹³ Flagrant Liar, Or, Mindless Parrot, Or, Innocent Fool
MEJTML¹⁴ Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
IEJTML¹⁵ Islamic Ends-Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
MPAV¹⁶ Marxist Principles And Values
WBESSWG¹⁷ Wise, Benign, Elite, Super-Scientific World Governance
TRMITM¹⁸ The Reason Man's In This Mess
IYI¹⁹ Intellectual Yet Idiotic
TTRSCBTF²⁰ Them There Real Smart Catholic Bishop Type Fellers
IACMPVND²¹ Illegal-Alien-Criminal Marxocrat-Party-Voting Nation-Destroyers
PEJTML²² Palestinian Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
PSYOP²³ "Psychological Operation" Mind Trick
CDC²⁴ Covid Developmentally Challenged
LGBTQ+ Every Letter Represents A Serious Psychotic sexual Identity Disorder
HEJTML²⁶ Hedonist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
SEJTML²⁷ Scientistic Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar

Reference Material

[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]

Culture=Religion+Politics;  Who Are We?  Vic Biorseth

The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA;  Vic Biorseth

Live Interviews

Return to the BLOG page

Return to the HOME PAGE

Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter

---

Date: Sat Feb 19 14:18:20 2011
From: John Smith (Alias Richard; Alias Jerry; alias Liberal Loony)
Email:
Location:
Comment:

"And they got a wonderful opportunity to rip Big Oil when the Exxon CEO retired for some $400,000,000 during the period when Exxon profits were up, and so were pump prices." When profits are up, they can reward themselves, as is fair in a free market. But have you ever thought that when there is substantial profit, there is also substantial risk? In fact, I would argue that profits are just rewards for such a risk of failure. So, when big oil or big auto fails, it is no business of the govt. to step in (with my hard earned money) and save the floundering business. If profits are for keeps of big companies, then losses are also for keeps. How come profits get divided between them and losses get divided amongst the public?

---

Date: Sat Feb 19 15:05:50 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

John Smith (Alias Richard; Alias Jerry; alias Liberal Loony):

This is the fourth comment you’ve sent in today, and every one of them with a different pseudo-name; why is that? Do you have multiple personalities?

You are correct about the risk / profit / loss relationship. The reason that tax dollars are involved in the loss side of the equation is that we have too many Marxists in high government office here. They do not properly represent us, and, similarly, often the CEOs of big companies do not properly represent their own owners, investors and shareholders (GM, Chrysler, GE, Bank One, Goldman Sachs, etc.) No company, no bank, no private enterprise, no state, no county, no city or township should ever be “bailed out” by any higher government entity, or any government entity, or any tax funds. Just like the rest of us, you either make it on your own, or you end up in bankruptcy court.

There is no such thing as a private enterprise of any kind that is too big to fail; never was, never will be.

Nothing good comes from corrupt captains of private enterprise getting into bed with corrupt politicians. They called it Fascism in Mussolini’s Italy, and they called it National Socialism in Hitler’s Germany. Rather than simply nationalizing the means of production, as in Bolshevism / Communism, they took ownership of the owners of the means of production and all capital, and then kept them all on a very tight leash. Just as Obama is doing.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Mon Feb 21 10:28:47 2011
From: V V S(alias Liberal loony alias alias Mahendra alias Dr. Mahmoud Salami alias Jerry alias Richard alias Frederic Jose alias hundred others I do not remember)
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Hi Vic, It seems I have been caught out by my own stupidity. Answering your first question first, no, I do not have multiple personality disorder or any such thing. I am a political science student at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Deonar, India. I am working on my dissertation, focusing mainly on the rise of nationalistic and right wing movements across the globe, specifically France and US. Much of my research is focused on the politics of Jean-Marie Le Pen and his National Front party in France, and the Tea Party movement in the US. The Tea party movement is far more fascinating. I have thousands of documents available online that focuses on what drives the tea party, but almost nothing on what drives the tea partiers, or the people behind the movement (I mean unbiased information). So I take a very hands on approach, simply logging into websites and blogs that promote conservative politics. But the problem with this approach is that no one will really open up to me if I st ate who I really am, an Indian political science student. So, I use aliases, it is quite fun actually. I go in as a liberal Muslim who shows his true fundamentalist colors with each subsequent conversation (Dr. Mahmoud Salami), a hippie California liberal who thinks sodomy is the greatest thing in the world, as a radical imam threatening to chop off your neck, as a far right born again Christian, anything goes. I do not want the sterile responses that is reserved for academics. If this will assuage you in any way, your website is only one of the hundreds that I frequent daily, merely to identify any visible thread that binds the people behind the ultra-conservative politics in US. I know you have been robbed of valuable time, but I make no apologies. It was necessary. Did I find this useful? Yes and no. The results of my research were pretty surprising, truth be told. For example, you might be surprised at the number of people who hold liberal viewpoints (as far as I could make out from their responses), and still support the tea party movement. I will send you a copy of my dissertation, should you wish to see it. Of course, all these online conversations will play no part in the submission. That was simply to "pick the minds", as you Americans are fond of saying. Since I have blown my cover, this site is of no more use to me. I wish you the best of luck in your little crusade.

Regards,

VVS.

P.S.: I know I have been very rude in some of my submissions. However, that was necessary. A hippy liberal with a flowery language will give the game away even before it starts.

PPS: I see you are think EU and France are far too mired in left wing politics. Perhaps you underestimate the emerging rightwing grassroots movement and nationalistic politics.

PPPS: I have submitted another opinion today under the guise of some name I do not remember. That was before I saw this. Took me half an hour to research on Bishop Williamson and SSPX. Forget that submission, don't bother answering it.

PPPPS: I do not judge your politics, I do not label them, for the worst folly you can make when you are studying something is to look at it with tinted glasses. But I do think this rightwing movement is perhaps the most important since the social liberalization that swept across the globe in the 60s. As they say, interesting times ahead.

Adios.

---

Date: Mon Feb 21 19:04:58 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Whomever:

Do you have a partner in crime, with another computer? Dr. Salmami had a separate IP address, and a distinct pattern of English miss-spelling, which was somewhat different than your own distinct pattern of English miss-spelling. All your other identities came from one IP address, and coming as they did within a very short time frame on the same day, with different names, seemed to indicate that some kind of trickery was afoot.

I am a Tea Partier. If you can see what drives me, then you can see what drives the Tea Party. It’s very simple; there is nothing to it. We are American Constitutional Conservatives. Read our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights (first ten amendments), the rest of the 27 amendments, and you will know what we are after, and what we intend to restore.

If your dissertation is to be written in English, you really need to work on it.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Tue Feb 22 10:34:49 2011
From: Venkittapuru Venkitasai Sivaramakrishnan
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Dear Vic, That response was far more civil than what we expected or probably deserved. You are most perceptive, "Dr. Salami" is in fact my batch mate who is working on the same project. And yes, my English is rather poor, the product of a lifetime of education in Hindi and Marathi. I am hoping that you would be kind enough to answer a couple more questions.

1. As I understand it, the Tea party stands for free market trade. Do you believe that free market would work to America's advantage in the present situation? To be more elaborate, thousands of jobs are being outsourced from US to India each year because of cheap labor. Same job done at one-tenth the price, leaving large cross-sections of your population unemployed. Or are not Obama's protectionist trade policies better? The world has changed and so has the power balances. Or take the famed American automobile industry. You still produce great cars, undoubtedly. But recently, automobile manufacturers in India and China have started producing cars priced in the $3500-$5000 range, not junk cars, but those which match the European safety and emission standards. If not for some "Obamunism", do you think America can still hold on to it's economic hegemony?

2. There is some criticism that Tea Party is not opposed to big govt. spending, but to govt. spending in SPECIFIC AREAS THEY DO NOT LIKE. For example, Stephen Lee Fincher, a prominent tea party politician, has received millions of dollars as agricultural subsidies (which is necessary, by the way). If free market rules apply, then he should also be making or breaking on his own, without government intervention, yes? Why is that such subsidies or the enormous spending of the armed forces not criticized while affirmative action programs and social security programs come under fire?

Regards,

V. V. Sivaramakrishnan

---

Date: Tue Feb 22 18:29:15 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

V. V. Sivaramakrishnan:

What do they call you for short? (Do you have a nick-name?)

Re your question number 1:

The “Free Market” is the only thing that works for any nation, in any situation, because it is free to work. Planned economies fail, sooner or later, because when you try to control prices, or supply, or demand, or labor, or interest rates, or pay, or any aspect of the free and open marketplace, you do injury to the free economic system. America’s economy has been in decline for many, many decades now, not due solely to Obama, but certainly due to Marxist-Socialist inspired market interference by an increasingly Marxist-Socialist government. Labor unions are a major part of this trend, because they act to oppose the initial and driving purpose for the existence of the private enterprise they unionize, that purpose being the financial success of the private enterprise. Labor unions seek to change that private enterprise purpose to become the financial success of the workers, rather than the profit of the private enterprise. (If you’ve been paying attention to American news, you should be able to see that unions in America are on the way out.)

See the I, Pencil; Capitalism in a Nutshell Webpage for a much simplified explanation of free market Capitalism, and how it works when it is left alone and nobody tries to control it. I very strongly recommend The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek; it is very short, and an excellent warning regarding attempts to control the free market.

There will always be an ebb and flow in temporary market domination by various companies and nations; the ones that are the most free and unrestricted by governments or unions or monopolies will always do the best, at least temporarily, or until the next new big thing comes along. I predict that when America passes the Fair Tax a lot of those auto and other manufacturers in Asia and Europe will clamber to open facilities in America for the major tax advantage they would enjoy.

Re your question number 2:

The Tea Party is opposed to any spending (or any governing) on anything that is not specified in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t spell it out, the government should not be doing it or paying for it or trying to control it. Most of us are opposed to subsidies and to tariffs. We argue about political embargos, i.e., as imposed against Cuba, Iran, etc. Arms embargos might make sense, but many others (sugar, cigars, etc.) may be hurting ordinary citizens more than governments. Bottom line, the market should be free, whenever possible.

Regarding American defense spending, it is miniscule compared to American spending on entitlements. What American spends on defense is dwarfed by what America spends on entitlements. The entitlements are not in the Constitution; defense spending is in the Constitution. If American is not militarily secure, what else matters? Think about a world without a strong American military presence for a moment. How many free world nations have the ability to project military force much beyond their own borders, and how many even have the ability to defend themselves against a resurgent Russia or China, or even Iran? If Russia went on the march again, who would the threatened nations turn to? Certainly not themselves.

We believe in The Rule of Subsidiarity, and that means that lower levels of government should follow the same rule as the Federal government. Individual States should not spend (or govern) on anything that is not specified in the State Constitution. The same goes for Counties, Townships and Cities; it if isn’t in the Charter, the government shouldn’t be doing it.

The whole thing is wrapped up in the notion that we are a nation of laws and not just of men, and that no man is above the law. Once the government starts acting like it is above the law, then it is time for the people to take remedial action. That is what we are doing. In order for this form of government to work, it must be a representative government, and a Constitutional government.

By the way, I am an old, computer mainframe COBOL/CICS American dinosaur; that whole genre of work was outsourced to India, Pakistan and China long ago. I have no real problem with that. I don’t care if America or any other country dominates some economic niche for awhile, for all things are passing anyway. What I care about is that markets be free, and that men may be free, so that many may prosper. I wish everyone could have the blessings that I have had.

Regards,

Vic

---

Date: Tue Feb 22 16:15:41 2011
From: VVS
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Hi Vic,

A couple more questions if you do not mind.

1. As I understand it, the Tea party intends to restore America to a society based on Christian values and ethics, ruled by the constitution as written, and to push back the liberalism and secularism that pervades America today, yes? Don't you think America went past that crossing a few decades ago? Like it or not, it is one of the most liberal and secular societies in the world today. The kind of change you envision would involve a drastic reorientation of the values the country as a whole holds. Have you thought of the resistance that this would have? Imagine that the Tea party wins the next elections and conservatives come to power. Any chipping away at "liberal rights" will be immediately challenged in the court. Do you think any one other than Antonin Scalia entertain this? Even George Bush apparently did not want to go down that path. What is the point of having a ultraconservative govt. if the highest court of the land overrules change as you envision?

2. As far as I could gather, the Tea Party does not enjoy the support of the intellectuals. I have a lot of reviews and papers written by eminent political science professors and law professors in American universities. Very few of them seem to support your positions. In fact, a large number of them dwell on the religious and racial breakup of the Tea partiers, implying without saying outright that this is a racist movement. Your thoughts? (Could you name a few academics that do in fact support your politics?)

---

Date: Tue Feb 22 19:54:10 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

VVS:

Re your number 1:

America, by population, already is a society based on Christian values and ethics. It is the government of America that has become liberal and secularized. Thanks to the government, its laws, and the unconstitutional government school system, the people themselves are becoming more liberal and secularized. However, against the best efforts of the unrepresentative and atheistic government, the American people are still some 86% professed Christian. However poorly we may practice it in our very diverse denominations and practices, that is what we call ourselves and how we think of ourselves, and how we behave. (Outside of Hollywood.) One out of four of us is Catholic. Catholics are outnumbered by Protestants by about three to one.

Go back and re-read our Declaration of Independence, and pay close attention to the religious references. This is our national founding document.

Our nine member Supreme Court is divided roughly into five conservative and four liberal justices, with one “conservative” often becoming a swing vote on some issues. The oldest members of the court are liberal, and the youngest are conservative. Odds are good that the court will become more conservative over time; Obama is unlikely to get the chance to replace any member who is not already a liberal. And the next President is unlikely to even nominate a liberal.

Re your number 2:

It is quite the other way round. The intellectuals do not enjoy the support of the Tea Party. Most eminent political science professors and law professors in American universities are held in open contempt by the Tea Party. The reason is that most of them are Marxists. American academia is dominated by Marxism, and has been for many decades. Everyone who has been through any university knows it to be true. Many Tea Partiers got their degrees by holding their tongues and hiding their conservatism until after graduation. We are of all races and denominations. Many of us are Libertarians, which is to say (in my opinion) amoral, but still, strict Constitutionalists. Some of us are Jews.

We are all fed up with professional politicians of both Parties. We fully intend to take over the Republican Party and remake it into a champion of Constitutional America. Every meeting I’ve attended began and ended with prayer. In America, despite what you may see on broadcast media or read anywhere, that is not unusual. Most social groups do that, whether veteran groups, community organizations or whatever. The notion that we are a secular society is a myth. But that is not to say that we are a theocracy, or trending theocratic. Hindus or Buddhists would be welcome, if there were any around here.

Regards,

Vic

---

Saturday, February 23, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0. 

---

Date:  Tue Apr 22 14:28:20 2014
From:  abe3
Email:   mbmarkbunnell@gmail.com
Location:  Baraboo, Wi, usa
Comment:

I totally agree that it is difficult to get good information from the web. However, there are some sites that are much better than others like NASA and NOAA, both give great info on climate change.

Check out climate.nasa.gov

I know this is a government agency but they were able to land a probe on Titan.

Good site btw.

---

Date: 
Tue Apr 22 From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Abe3:

Among all the federal agencies I treated in the Cut the Spending pages, I seem to have overlooked NASA.  The only real use I see for NASA is for purposes of national defense, with a minor purpose of expanding knowledge.  For my take on NOAA, see the Cut the DOC page. 

You shouldn't need the web to get info on the climate, Abe3.  All you need is a modicum of simple common sense. 

First, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.  Gas is permeable; glass is impermeable.  There is no way to make a gas impermeable, or any kind of one-way  insulator. 

Second, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that the globe is even warming, let alone that the phony warming is somehow man-induced. 

It's all a giant fraud, Abe3.  People like George Soros, Maurice Strong, Al Gore and a host of others are making hundreds of millions, even billions, perhaps trillions on it.  But the real goal, personal profit aside, is, not climate control, but political and legal control.  Control of currencies.  Control of governments.  Control of nations.  Control of people.  Control of the world. 

Also, under Obamunism, the new primary mission of NASA is not to explore space, but to puff up Islam and make it feel undeservedly good about itself. 

How's that for science? 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Tue Apr 22 21:21:57 2014
From:  Horace
Email:   
Location:  Boston
Comment: 

You cannot be serious, Victor.  Have you even looked at the NASA website?  These are real scientists, and they show the evidence right there on the webpage.  Greenhouse gasses do exist, and they are having an effect on the climate. 

---

Date:  Wed Apr 23 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Horace:

Yes, I am serious, and yes, I have looked at the NASA propaganda website.  What you have to realize, seriously, is that NASA is not what it used to be.  Far from it.  NASA today is owned, operated and driven by the Obamunist form of Marxism and the Sorosian form of Globalism. 

As I said in Stupidassism, and elsewhere herein, if you scratch a global warming stupidass you will find a Marxist stupidass just beneath the surface.   As someone gradually becomes more Marxist, they gradually become more of a MEJTML¹⁴ .   And the tendency to lie for a worthy cause - and saving the world from itself is a worthy cause - increases, and the former scientist is transformed into a member of the fellowship of TTRSTF⁴ .

Then, they no longer do science.  What they do is Scientism. 

Regarding greenhouse gases - again, there is no such thing.  If you build a greenhouse and put glass in the window frames, you will make a greenhouse.  If you build another one and put nothing in the window frames, you will not have built a greenhouse.  The wind will blow through, just as it does at all levels of the atmosphere.  You can make your gas panes as thick as you want.  You can make your air-insulated greenhouse as tall as the atmosphere itself; but the termperature inside will still be remarkable similar to the temperature outside.  This is not rocket science. 

 We have had a "green revolution" in which food production has been increased by science to an incredible degree, but the forces of Marxism and Globalism are doing everything in their power to kill it, to cut food production, to kill the family farm, to restrict arable land, fertilizers, instecticides, etc., etc., etc., to the point of increasing world hunger. 

We have more proven reserves of fossil fuels than ever before, but the forces of Marxism and Globalism are doing everything in their power to restrict it, kill it, keep it in the ground and cause shortages, and make you feel that they are doing something good. 

Over any ten year period of time, food production and proven reserves of any commodity you can name have always gone up, never down, and yet we have all these government induced shortages and high prices. 

A few people are getting very rich over this fraud and some people are riding it toward world revolution.  In the meantime, they are getting more and more in control of natural resources, food, currency, business, behavior and liberty. 

And they're making some people - perhaps you - feel good about what they are doing, because you haven't really looked at it all. 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:   Sun Sep 07 2014
From:  Vic Biorseth
Comment:  

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL and name from 
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages.  . 

Regards,

Vic

---

Date:  Sat Nov 23 13:41:39 2019
From:  Pidlubniak
Email:   slavapidlubniak@yahoo.com.ua
Location:  Ukraine
Comment: 

An excellent article - as usual, you dive right into the heart of the matter. I would only add the fact that the modern obsession with ecology is even worse then just mere scam of our resident Soviet ideological leftovers - today's "green" everything is the re-colored "blut und boden" of the Nazis. Al Gore, being the utterly un-creative hack he is, totally ripped off Gunther Schwab's "Dance With The Devil" - Gunther Schwab described every single "eco-alarm" in his book (which was meant as a mere speculation, back then - even Gunther himself admitted it). Also, he was a true believer of the Nazi cause - he always advocated for "properly managing" the population of the world and feared that the "wildlife and countryside" will be destroyed by the "urbanization". He went on to establish the "World Union for Protection of Life" (and I suspect that human life is nowhere near the list of their priorities). Ah, the hypocrisy of those ecological useful idiots... You destroy an egg of some rare eagle or whatever and you pay a fine or rot in prison for that - but destroy a human life that hasn't even born yet and it's a "right". Anyway, Gunther Schwab died in 2006 - seems that bastards like him can somehow live almost forever while decent folks can barely reach their retirement. So... The green is the new brown, it seems - and anytime a useful idiot/SJW/NPC/Neo-Marxist or another sort of intersectionality adherent spouts something about "global warming denial", one can always tell them that they are recycling literal Nazi propaganda.

---

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

Name / Pseudo-Name:*

E-mail Address:

City / State / Country:

Comment:*

Please enter the word that you see below.

Copyrighted Material