More Greenist Nonsense

Cordial, Anyone?

It seems that Gordon "Debt-slaver" Brown has filled his government with ideologues, fellow travellers and the barking mad. Presumably he finds them to be kindred spirits and he has reproduced after his own kind.

Sir Jonathon Porritt is the British government's “green adviser”. He chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission. He has finally come out and said in public what greenists clandestinely whisper about in their secret gatherings. In order to combat global warming, the human population will have to be restricted or reduced.

The Times of London, carries a report as follows:

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said. “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.” . . .

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

Now, let's understand that Porritt is not a green persona non grata, at the lunatic fringe of the Greenist movement. He is at its heart. He has official status. He has the imprimatur of government. But he has done us a service insofar as he has made explicit what we have feared implicitly about the Greens all along.

1. Greenism is anti-human. Greenism believes that human beings are the biggest polluting species on the planet. The bottom line is that if pollution (the curbing of which is the ultimate ethic by which all other human action is to be judged) cannot be controlled, there is an ultimate solution at hand to the problem: the human race will have to be curtailed.

It is better to have the ill die, to abort babies, to limit families to two (or one child, or no children) than for man to continue to despoil and pollute the planet.

2. Greenism is statist. It cannot work by persuasion, by converting people to its cause. That is never enough. The danger and the threat is too dire. It must be faced with drastic measures—with, well, force. People must be forced to obey and conform and “be responsible”. Thus the government must move to extend a necessary tyranny over parents and families, controlling how many children they may be permitted to have; the terms and conditions under which they will have them; who may live and who must die—all to meet the desperate threats with which we are allegedly faced.

3. Greenism is totalitarian. The course of humanity upon the earth shows us that there is nothing more dangerous than human beings who believe that the end justifies the means. The achievement of a necessary ideal or greater good becomes so important in the minds of the believer that they would cut any corners to achieve it. Deaths and injustices along the way are regarded as mere collateral damage.

People forget that the Nazi Ultimate Solution grew out of a (then) reasonable proposition, widely believed throughout Germany—that jewry had conspired against Germany in World War I engineering its defeat, and had used its capital and financial resources to keep Germans in subjection. Once this “clear and present danger” became believable, the Ultimate Solution became acceptable. In order for Germany to survive it had to cleanse its world of Jews.

Greenism has filled the world with its talk of a clear and present danger—global warming. The ultimate goal is the salvation of the planet. This end leads Greens to be prepared to do whatever it takes—even to waging war upon the human race.

However, Greenism is cowardly and hypocritical. In comparison, Jim Jones (of Jonestown infamy) was courageous and truthful. Jones believed the authorities were out to get him and his followers. His paranoia led him to believe it would be better for him and his followers to die. So the mass suicide followed. At least Jones and his followers lived out their beliefs in a kind of depraved consistent way.

Greenists, by contrast, lack the courage of their convictions and they say one thing and do another. If Porritt and his fellow Green travelers believe that the world would be better off with less people, he and they should lead the way by taking their own lives. They should become faithful witnesses to their cause by self-sacrifice for the race and the planet, rather than hectoring everyone else.

One would expect that the Greenist movement--at least all those in it who agree with Porritt--would be gathering devotees and believers into groups, writing their collective witness and testimony to the world, and for the sake of the planet drinking “Jonestown cordial” in acts of mass suicide. Then at least we could regard them as people of a measure of integrity, albeit worthy of our pity.

But as it stands Greenists of the ilk of Porritt are contemptible. They lack the courage of their convictions. They are without any basic integrity. Standing on their soap-boxes, three feet above contradiction, they lecture others to do as they say, but not as they do. They are the moral and intellectual pygmies of our age. We challenge them to lead by example.

If they really believe what they are advocating for others, they should lead the way and help the planet by getting off it. If they are not so prepared to act, we are entitled to conclude that their cause is disbelieved by them and, therefore, Greenists of Porritt's ilk should be ignored when it comes to stewardship over the environment.