Eco-Daleks

I'm coining a new term today:
ECO-DALEK.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Who, a Dalek is one of these:
Wikipedia entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalek

They're slow-moving, nigh-invulnerable aliens with one goal. To EXTERMINATE pretty much everything that isn't them. (They're also low-budget monsters with plungers for death rays, but they've got cultural staying power and some good story arcs.)

So what exactly is an Eco-Dalek? An environmentalist-ecoterrorist that believes in extermination of mankind for the sake of the planet.

(Alternately, they can be Enviro-Daleks.)

The bad guys in Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 novel were representative of that. Obama's Science & Technology Czar, John Holdren, holds this view. He believes in forced abortions and mass sterilization by poisoning drinking water to exterminate the population in order to "save the planet". The concept of overpopulation by people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation also results in this view - where if there are too many poor, or rich who use too many resources, they must be exterminated.

In fact, most Malthusians think this way. Some educated idiots simply compare humans to bacteria while their projected malthusian catastrophes never happen. They know what's best for the planet, and the planet is the most important thing. So humanity has to start dying.

Of course, they believe that they are the chosen ones who should live since they're the best stewards of the land and know how to preserve and protect the planet. Everyone else must die, they must live, since they are perfect. It almost parallels Marxist doctrine of class enemies, but here the class enemies are based on piety to adherence to the doctrines of environmental mania and their leaders whether through advancement of the AGW cause or at least buying carbon indulgences. This is why Al Gore, with a mansion and jetsetting around the world as the prophet of Manbearpig, can be an absolute hypocrite (though he buys carbon credits from his own company). Al Gore, while he is the prophet of Manbearpig, doesn't seem to be an eco-dalek yet. He hasn't actually said "you should die". (Yet.)

Al Gore's brand is more of an enviro-statist. He's all for the government regulating your life until you're a subsistence farmer who doesn't harm the earth at all, or until you're simply hooked up to pods like in Matrix and fed bonemeal slurry Soylent Green from dead people so we don't even have to farm anymore.

This is his world:


A world where you submit to the eco-state. The state, of course, does whatever it likes. And of course, those who consume more are evil, those who consume less are good, so it's also a bit of watermelon environmentalism. Green on the outside, red on the inside. A dictatorial authoritiarian government will rule your life, for your own good. Alternately: Enviro-nazis.

The eco-dalek is something else.

Consider the following ad from the land that brought you 1984, Dr. Who and blood pudding:



This is a real ad. No, this is not a spoof by the Onion.

The UK Guardian has part of the story here. It's part of the 10:10 project, telling people they must reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

Hotair has a good roundup of critical responses here.

You don't do what they "nudge", then they will EXTERMINATE!

For your own good, of course.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

- C.S. Lewis

Al Gore merely wants to tell you how to live for your own good. He'll dictate how your life shall be, and you'll live as he tells you to. The eco-dalek tells you you should not live. He'll dictate that you must die for your own good.

EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!

Manbearpig out of the bag - I'm super serial!

For those late to the party, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked a few days ago by some unknown Russians. A large datadump hit the internet very soon after, which included some 60mb composed mostly of text files - including a huge number of emails between Anthropogenic Global Warming proponent "scientists". Many of the emails between the "scientists" were instructions and suggestions to other scientists to hide or otherwise obfuscate data, outright lie, delete dissenting information, and paint an all-around picture of AGW proponents as simply manufacturing data to support their frenetic quest.

Many snippets of the emails with links and summaries here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Often referenced in the East Anglia emails and data is Michael Mann. Michael Mann is the individual responsible for the so-called "hockey stick" graph used in Al Gore's propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Which, naturally, was in large part fabricated.

Among the complaints and concerns were that the data (much involving tree ring samples) was not shared or objectively reviewed. No one outside the priesthood of global warming was allowed access to the data, and heretics were actively squelched. Furthermore, their efforts at doing real research were stymied as the criterion for "peer review" were modified.

The short version: you need to be peer-reviewed to be viewed as a reputable scientist. So in order to prevent reputable arguments against global warming canon, heretics were simply denied peer review. Ta-da! No more "reputable" scientists coming out against global warming... even though some 35,000 have signed petitions against it.

See how easy it is to make it look settled when you simply control the data?
From the AGW site: More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

With no recognition from the church of global warming, dissenters were all heretics spouting apocrypha. And of course, as the data is shown to be manufactured, it's very easy to dispute.

Now I'll do it:


All scientists are opponents of anthropogenic global warming. And in order for any counterclaim to be reputable and worthy of consideration by science, you'll have to be published in a peer-reviewed professional blog. Namely this one. See how easy it is to manufacture consensus?

The myriad of individuals showing up in the datadump also get more interesting as time goes by:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199741.php

Remember him?

--

All of this would be simply entertaining academic infighting were it mathematicians bickering over solving Fermat's Theorem.

But how it applies to all of us out here in the non-academic world is that right now there are international discussions about Cap & Trade and Carbon Tax. The idea behind those is that governments regulate the amount of carbon emissions that individuals can put out. That's how much you breathe, how much you burn, how much your business emits. If you accept the fallacy that carbon dioxide is a bad thing, it starts to sound like a good idea.

Some of the facts are that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperature increases. And plants need it to breathe.

The sun influences global temperatures much more than does the amount of CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere, and the recent solar cycles have been of notice to both those who follow climate (and aren't blinded by their orthodox theology) and those who are concerned about the solar ebb for the last few years.

But the most important words were two paragraphs ago: governments regulate.

The idea is that governments must control the amount of CO2 produced. AGW theory supposes that all CO2 is bad, and therefore must be controlled. This gives governments a new control mechanism, all "for our own good." It is one where if governments don't begin to act in a dictatorial fashion, we will all die, and thus those powerful men in government know best for us, and they know they must act - even against us - for we are too stupid to see the truth that they must lead us.

Reread genocidal maniac Holdren's email. I'll wait.

AGW theory creates a zero-sum game for the world, and creates a system by which global government, whether through treaties or outright, is created in order to "save the world". The do-gooder intentions of those masters of men then becomes to "save us" from their fabricated crisis. In order to not have great sections of the world simply revolt - i.e. developing nations - they establish global carbon credits, by which poorer developing nations are simply paid to halt their development. They're given unearned riches and wealth simply for being poor, while their development of their people is retarded, but certainly rewarded for their rulers.

The global carbon credit market will also benefit those businesses (like GE), who are the first in bed with government. This is why GE has been conducting such propaganda scams as "Green Week" on NBC, and why GE is now producing the CFL light bulbs (in China, of course) that the US govt. has mandated for us.

Were this about saving the environment, everyone would get behind it. Why? Because it's good sense. If it weren't about handing over govt. power, people would go out of their way to do more environmentally friendly activities in their daily lives - people bend over backwards to recycle.

(It is economical and ecologically friendly in the case of metals, but that's about it.)

People want more fuel-efficient cars because it's cheaper. Everyone wants more energy-efficient homes because they cost less in the long run. Everyone wants to pay less and use less (it leaves more for other things), and a lot of people are willing to go the extra mile to keep Iron Eyes Cody from crying (even if he wasn't a Native American and was a fraud).

If the science were actually discussed (rather than hushed up) and we didn't simply tolerate the lie spouted by modern-day orthodox druids who advocate Malthusian exterminations, forced abortions, and sterilization to "save the planet", and we didn't put up with the propaganda spouted by a company that serves to make millions from our tax dollars, this would be an important issue. Right now, it's an eggregious example of science, government, and business collaborating to force things upon not only citizens of the US, but of the entire world.

-

For one parallel example, right now, we put up with things like ethanol, which cost 3 gallons of petrochemicals to produce 4 gallons of ethanol, plus the added economic and environmental cost of further refinement and production, at a return of 10% or less gas mileage and with added damage to automotive components. Thus, it destroys cars which take more economic and environmental assets to maintain, and it pollutes at a higher rate due to the loss of gas mileage. There's also the loss of food production, both in sweet corn and in feed corn.

The local government stooges benefit by reelection by bribing their constituents at the expense of the nation, the constituents and their businesses in bed with the govt benefit from having the force of government behind the government mandated sale of their product, and environmentalists get to claim victory and advance politically, even though they do so detrimentally to the planet. The winners are the conspirators. The losers are everyone else.

Czar Wars Episode VI: Return of the Eugenicists

Well-known blogger Zombie has done a better review of this man than anyone around, and first I must give acknowledgment to that blogger (who is deep behind radical lines in San Fran):

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Direct quote from John Holdren's book "Ecoscience" pg 837:

To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.


Note also that the "usual suspects" are utilized by leftists here. The general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are cited, as well as the 14th Amendment. They're often used as end-runs around the Constitution.

The general welfare clause is limited by the enumerated powers that follow - otherwise the Constitution would just say "govt. can do whatever means well".

The interstate commerce clause, was intended to allow the federal govt. to prevent individual states from interfering with commerce. For example, if a good was being sold and shipped from Georgia to North Carolina and South Carolina chose to tax it along the way, the federal govt. could step in to ensure that commerce was protected.

I fail to see how "equal protection" includes forced abortions and sterilization, but I'm not a liberal advocating what amounts to genocide to "save the planet".

From page 838:
Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis).

"Our emphasis" is Holdren & Ehrlich's.

Consider that first sentence: "Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction." Really?

The argument for abortion is that it's a woman's right to her own body. The argument against is that the fetus is a human life, and therefore deserving of equal protection under the law.

The argument here is that the woman has no right to her own body against the govt's power to murder its citizens, and the fetus has no right to exist against the power of the govt.

For once, pro-choicers and pro-lifers should have something to fundamentally agree on.

More from 838:

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

There's quite a bit more at Zombie's blog. I direct you readers to read it there - as s/he went to the trouble of scanning pages of the book to show you exactly what was written. You can look at it in context, and read full quotes.

The man spent a lot of time seriously deliberating how to get around the Constitution to start sterilizing you and me. We're an overpopulated animal on the planet to him.

Is this the kind of man you want as the advisor and regulator on science policy? Because he's the Science Czar you have.

Much like Levar Burton on Reading Rainbow would say: "Don't take my word for it."

Another collection of info on John Holdren can be found here, including a video of Holdren at an event advocating zero-growth:

http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/09/08/dont-forget-about-radical-science-czar-john-holdren/

--
Now, why is all of this terrifying? Well, according to the leftist propaganda site Media Matters, which is funded and supported by major leftist groups, this is all smear and taken out of context.

Except you can go and read it in context. All of it.

The man's written a blueprint of how he thinks - everything from advocating forced sterilization of women to releasing sterilizing chemicals in the water supply to a global regime to mandate the population.

May as well just get these ready:


If any one of us - you, me, JBH, any member of your family, your friends, your boss or your teacher - were to write a 900-page scholarly treatise on how a certain race needed to be exterminated, we'd probably have difficulty getting a government job. If your name were attached to "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and Eskimos", we'd be done for. You couldn't advocate extermination of a race. Sure, Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, who married he and his wife, can say vile things about "the JOOOOOS", and that's okay. But were he to actually write a 900 page book on how the Danes must be sterilized by poisoning their drinking water, he probably would've encountered some difficulty.

John Holdren escapes this by being in academia. Academia is notable for being insulated from the real world, as academics are funded by grants and free money, where all they have to do is talk to earn a living. Their ideas are tossed around, and are mostly meaningless, and they're insulated from the effects of their nonsensical ideas due to being subsidized by alumni and those seeking tax breaks on their grants; and of course by govt. grants that never have any strings attached. Also of note, when discussing something in great detail that doesn't matter one whit, folks will use the phrase "It's all academic anyway" - saying that it's a meaningless discussion with zero effect on reality or decisionmaking.

But when these eerily progressive ideas get out, they rapidly metastasize into something far worse. The "academic" ideas of phrenology and eugenics back in the 1800s and 1900s led to the conclusion that there were "superior races" and led to continued injustice against blacks in the US, who were considered subhuman by "scientists" like John Holdren. These crackpot theories dreamed up by men of letters led to entire schools of racial purity in Europe, and beyond the murder of 6-12 million and a war that killed millions more, there were also the forced abortions and sterilizations of "undesirables."

John Holdren, like many leftist tyrants, believes in equality. All races are equally worthless to him - and he believes in egalitarian misery.

His statements of a shrinking world and Malthusian overpopulation are from the world of a zero-sum mindset. There are only so many resources and they must be divided equally, so says he - to the point that growth cannot be sustained and populations must be culled to manage resources.

Mankind are not deer on a hunting ranch or cows on a feed lot. This ignores the free market, where the individual has limitless capacity to produce and benefit everyone else in the system as well. The only limits on resources available for production (or consumption) are those placed by government.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens. The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

Go and read it all.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

---

A while back I got into a discussion with someone over government health care. I was in the midst of reading a lot about government control of people's lives, and rather than bring up how rationing of resources results in poorer care, I mentioned the power aspect of it. You can have "know what's best for you" monsters in charge with government-run health care, and that of itself is terrifying.

We now have one such monster as science czar.

The main problem is one that is endemic on the left - it's a worldview that sees life as a zero-sum game. It sees overpopulation as a problem and children as a punishment -

- and the world as "lifeboat" with fixed resources.

This cynical, cold worldview is one that allows leftist/statist/collectivists to believe that they are best to be in charge because they should distribute the resources. The cynic among them is watching out for himself and putting himself in a position of power, and the do-gooder believes himself above the masses and in need of the indulgences he takes by being in power as necessary for the "greater good". Both of them concur that they are more important than "the masses" and thus they should dictate how the world will run.

But murdering millions is of course, for the greater good - according to such masters of men.

---
Reality check, folks: this shit is real. We have a man who's entirely similar to the mass-murdering supervillains in both Tom Clancy's novel "Rainbow Six", who seek to obliterate humanity (except for themselves) for the good of the planet, and the water-poisoning semi-spoof supervillains of "The Tuxedo".

The difference is that John Holdren is a real person in a real position of power to really impact your life (or the termination thereof) through his mandates. He's already looked for end runs around the rule of law to get away with it so that he can't be punished.

Everyone everywhere who's ever been the victim of this kind of madman has said "it can't happen here". Then when it happens, "there's nothing we can do about it."

Spread the word. Raise your voice. Get this man and all his enablers, supporters, and his appointers removed from any office of power.

I don't want to be saying "I told you so" and wandering the wasteland looking for gasoline for my Pursuit Special.