Eco-Fascism and the Neo-Malthusian Agenda

'Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are â?? not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

But that’s by no means represents the extreme edge of eco-fascist sentiment that has been expressed in recent years.

In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology.

The same year, ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

In 2006, an environmental magazine to which Al Gore and Bill Moyers had both granted interviews advocated that climate skeptics who are part of the “denial industry” be arrested and made to face Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.’ - Paul Joseph Watson

Sounds like something from a south park episode

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

“We know who the active denialists are â?? not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

But that’s by no means represents the extreme edge of eco-fascist sentiment that has been expressed in recent years.

In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology.

The same year, ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

In 2006, an environmental magazine to which Al Gore and Bill Moyers had both granted interviews advocated that climate skeptics who are part of the “denial industry” be arrested and made to face Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.’ - Paul Joseph Watson[/quote]

and what is your position sir as if it matters here? You honest believe there is no man made climate change presently taking place? I find post like your’s are like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You take offense at what is not the issue the real issue being what is to be done to save the planet.

Another pillar from the religion of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  • Paul Joseph Watson[/quote]
    …interesting - I’ve noticed that you’ve been posting crazier and crazier things lately. I like it.

But why?

silee:

Position on what? On green cronies, watermelons and assorted eco-agitators and bomb-throwers? Against them.

Which way is it “changing” this time? The Malthussians told us to prepare for an iceage back in the 70’s. Then it was “global warming.” Now “climate change.” Can we just stick to one apocalyptic eco-fantasy at a time? How is it changing? Is it cooling? Warming? Cooling and warming at the same time? These “scientists” have made, not only their careers but created an entire government cheese fueled industry with this crap. And you’ve got eco-cronies like Al Gore saying the U.S. should pay the Chinese to cut their emissions - the Chinese who own a quarter of your debt and lap up international “aid” like a drunken sailor whilst testing missiles off California and launching cyber and financial attacks on you.

Save the planet? I mean come on will ya? Cut the crap.

squat:

You mean Steve Zwick’s craziness presumably? I’m concerned about it. And I’m concerned about Steven Chu and John Holdren and all the other little green people. Aren’t you concerned about crazy people in the Whitehouse? Nevermind.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
squat:

You mean Steve Zwick’s craziness presumably? I’m concerned about it. And I’m concerned about Steven Chu and John Holdren and all the other little green people. Aren’t you concerned about crazy people in the Whitehouse? Nevermind.[/quote]
? Was that a sarcastic nevermind?

“Neo-Malthusianism” has got to be one of my biggest concerns actually - I just never thought I’d see you post anything from that author

I had no idea who the author was - although I just googled and it seems he’s a conspiracy kook or something. Not surprising as the OP is from AlexJones’ website. It was linked from Drudge. Not a bad article though.

A profile of yet another notorious Nazi to embrace environmentalism:

'Alfred Toepfer was born near Luneburg Heath, a plain full of meadows, forests, peat bogs, and sand dunes in northern Germany, just southeast of Hamburg…The heath was…where Nazi environmentalists gathered together at the end of the war to find some solace. Environmentalist Hans Klose, who never became a Nazi because he was married to a Jew, reorganized what was left of the German conservation movement. He helped Nazi environmentalists graduate from the de-Nazification process with minimal difficulties. In 1949, it was Hans Klose who said that the years 1936-1939 were the green heyday of the German conservation movement. Earlier, three landmark Nazi environmental laws were passed (1933-35). During the same time frame, the Nazis also implemented sustainable forestry practices called “dauerwald,” which means “eternal forest.”

During the postwar period, the Luneburg Heath was an environmental flashpoint between Germany and the Allies. Not only did Nazi Germany surrender to the Allies on the heath, but the sacred ground was scarred up by British tanks, which used the southwestern portion of it for military maneuvers. Toepfer strongly opposed the presence of the British military in the heath, but the Brits did not leave until 1994. However, thanks largely to the efforts of Toepfer, the Luneburg Heath became the first national park of Germany in 1956.

Alfred Toepfer continued to be a nature-lover until the day of his death. He was the chairman of the Nature Park Society 1953-1985, where he helped develop many new nature parks for Germany from the North Sea to the Alps. His efforts at the Nature Park Society were greatly expanded for all of Europe under the rise of the Europarc Federation, an association which Toepfer’s foundation still supports. In 1981, the Alfred Toepfer Academy for Nature Conservation (NNA) was established. It is a state institution that emphasizes sustainable development and environmentalism. Its main office is located at an old farmstead named Hof Mor in the Luneburg Health itself.’ - Abridged

^Wait what? Some guy got butthurt because British tanks mucked up a German national park after liberating 1.5 continents from Nazi rule?

Climate is changing.

Fossil fuels are running out

We should adopt a policy that is least damaging to the environment, while still producing power that enables a modern economy to go on. That means investing in transitional fuels, some of which might take years of start up before they start to return a profit.

Climate changes. Climate is always going to change. 60 million years ago the average global temperature was estimated to be 30 degrees celsius. 10,000 years ago, it was 2 degrees celsius ( I think). Now it’s 14 Celsius. You can deny that climate changes all you want, but we have to make adaptations that can ensure a modern economy can withstand more extreme and volatile weather, and not be reliant on fossil fuels.

Population control is another issue.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Climate is changing.
[/quote]

For sure. Yesterday it was sunny, today it’s raining.

Not so actually. Their are huge reserves yet to be discovered. The Central Asian Republics are sitting on large reserves recently discovered. Israel recently discovered huge off shore shale oil reserves. Fossil fuels drive the economy and there is no credible evidence that we are “running out” anytime soon.

Agree

No it doesn’t. That’s “climate change” propaganda.

Well, you may have bought into the lie that CO2 emissions are “changing” the climate to a significant degree but I haven’t. The science is bunk.

[quote]
Population control is another issue.[/quote]

No. Only Malthusians, fabians and utopian statists talk of “population control.” That’s based on bunk science also. The world is not overpopulated.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Climate is changing.
[/quote]

For sure. Yesterday it was sunny, today it’s raining.

Not so actually. Their are huge reserves yet to be discovered. The Central Asian Republics are sitting on large reserves recently discovered. Israel recently discovered huge off shore shale oil reserves. Fossil fuels drive the economy and there is no credible evidence that we are “running out” anytime soon.

Agree

No it doesn’t. That’s “climate change” propaganda.

Well, you may have bought into the lie that CO2 emissions are “changing” the climate to a significant degree but I haven’t. The science is bunk.

[quote]
Population control is another issue.[/quote]

No. Only Malthusians, fabians and utopian statists talk of “population control.” That’s based on bunk science also. The world is not overpopulated.[/quote]

SM, I disagree with population control. It’s a stupid idea

Weather and climate are two different things.

As I said in the other thread, (and I should have been clearer here) it’s getting harder to extract these fuels, though I’m sure they are in plentiful quantities. As for oil in central asia, to my knowledge it’s mainly in Kazakhstan. The main exploration is in West and East Africa. Gas is far more plentiful. I’d not heard about oil in Israel

What I think is that, regardless whether you think climate change is real or not, a move away from being so dependent on fossil fuels would be a good idea. That doesn’t mean get rid of them as they are an easy way to burn energy. But using them in less a proportion that what we are now.

In The UK, we are running out of North sea oil and gas. While there are still substantial reserves, it does not make sense to me to import and be reliant on places such as Algeria, Russia and Qatar. More sense perhaps, to have energy homegrown so fracking for shale gas, wind, solar, coal, nucelar, biofuels. All of it

EDIT: For simplicity’s sake, let’s take this onto the other thread.