Eco-zealots like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are neither people of principle nor altruistic, and they are certainly NOT moral.
They are immoral self-interested selfish egotistical assholes who care only about themselves. When they claim to want to "save the planet" at any cost, what they mean is that they don't care about the cost FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
They don't care whether those people will starve to death from unaffordable "organic" agriculture. These self-righteous egotistical assholes don't care that "biodiesel" and corn ethanol means BURNING FOOD IN AUTOMOBILES. Food that could feed poor people in the third world.
They don't care that natural gas is expensive, way too expensive for poor people to afford, and that nuclear power is cheap. Because they don't care whether or not poor people get to light their shacks at night. Poor people just don't matter to them.
Nor do they care that coal miners die in accidents whereas uranium miners don't. After all, coal miners are poor people, why should they give a fuck about them? And they certainly don't care that wind turbines emit infrasounds that make people who live near them stressed out and unable to sleep. After all, who cares what happens to some dirt farmers and rednecks?
They don't care that ambient energy, so-called "renewable" energy (what the fuck is that word even supposed to mean that doesn't apply to uranium fission? because it sounds like it violates the second law of thermodynamics, honestly!) costs 3 to 5 times as much as nuclear power. After all, electricity isn't something for poor people, is it?!
Nor do they care that solar panel buyers are going to get gypped because the panels will lose half their efficacy within 10 years and the wind turbines will be severely damaged because wind refuses to turn them at a constant speed or to spin them up and spin them down slowly and gently enough. Turbine makers like GE just love wind farms, gee I wonder why! They certainly don't care that these sources of power are expensive and unusable and will never pay for themselves.
Eco-zealots, their industrial enablers and their brainwashed foot-soldiers don't care that government and ratepayers are subsidizing them and they are stealing money from taxpayers and ratepayers! After all, isn't it their right to be subsidized? Aren't they entitled? Aren't they self-righteous enough?!
Eco-zealots like the Rocky Mountain Institute don't care that they're cutting down forests and burning massive amounts of petrol to commute between their "eco-preserves". Vastly more than New Yorkers who live in concrete jungles with miniscule footprints (per person) and take the subway. After all, they're rich and cities are for poor people! You shouldn't judge the rich people who are few by the same standards as the poor people who are many!
Eco-zealots don't care about the truth. They don't care that the Climate Research Institute has been systematically corrupting data and making bogus analyses ever since it was created. They're saving the planet after all! They don't care that polar bears have survived through numerous periods when the Arctic ice disappeared entirely. They don't care that only one or two populations of polar bears has been in decline while two dozen more were increasing in number at the same time. Aren't polar bears cute enough for you?! Well what about penguins then?! They're SAVING THE PLANET here. Whatever the fuck that means. Isn't it RIGHT to lie for The Cause?!
Eco-zealots care only about themselves, and since all these "environmental" movements are funded and controlled by rich people, the enemy is always poor people. As far as they're concerned, poor people should just die. And their own activities can never, ever be harmful to the "environment" (whatever the fuck that is) because hey they're rich! As far as they're concerned, an attack on the "environment" matters only if it 1) makes poor people wealthier, or 2) threatens their own survival.You can tell from "global warming" hysteria. Nuclear power plants are deemed by the elite, rich, corporate, hierarchical media to not be a good way to solve that problem (note that I consider the hysteria a real problem, not any hypothetical global warming that would just result in the Sahara desert being flooded by torrential rains, as actually happened in the past), but natural gas and wind turbines, both of which just "happen" to be expensive and unaffordable to poor people, those are great! After all, "expensive" just means rich people get more money. What's bad about that?!
It's only in the case of the delusional whack jobs who take the "global warming" crap seriously, who think it will threaten their own personal survival, yeah those whack jobs are egotistical enough to say that maybe, just maybe, nuclear power can be "part of the solution". Because when it was just poor people in South Korea and China who might benefit from nuclear power, they didn't give a flying fuck. Back then it was all pissing and moaning about how horrible nuclear power was because it gave off magical J-rays that magically corrupted people. But when it's their own personal survival they think is at stake then hey, HEY!, let's not be hasty!!
The whole concept of "sustainability" is at odds with scalability. Scalability means "how do we make sure all 6+ billion people on this planet can use this? So-called "sustainability" means "how do we make sure the status quo of rich people using this technology can be maintained forever"? These are anti-thetical concerns. Worse than that, so-called "sustainability" is an anti-human concern. Because "human" includes the 6 billion people who AREN'T rich and can't afford the so-called "sustainable" technologies of organic food and electricity from weak ambient power sources.
So-called "civil society" is just a means for landed aristocrats like William "Bill" Gates III to tell other people what to do. To order them about. To tell them to starve and die and above all STAY POOR. Is it any wonder that China and Russia are both telling the world "homey don't play that". And China more than Russia because it's actively industrializing and wants to make poor people wealthy.
The refusal of Canada and the USA to build hydroelectric dams to create more arable land and flood the world with cheap food has fuck-all to do with any "environmental" concerns. And it sure has fuck-all to do with any hypothetical "biodiversity" or "biodensity" of rivers which ecological biology isn't scientific enough to measure! It has everything to do with power. Because helping poor people is "bad" and technologies that are cheap are "bad". There is a class war going on you witless peons. There always has been. It has never stopped.
CLASS WAR. It's not some dirty word. And if it's not "politically correct", I don't give a fuck. Inner city American blacks are niggers and I'll call them that. Or black to their face, after all I don't want some anti-education anti-intellectual thug pounding on me. American blacks certainly aren't "African" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. So when the rich are waging class war on the poor (ie, always) then I'll call it that too. Damned idiots who think that ceasing to call a thing what it is will make it go away. Are you people pre-adolescent children?! It. Is. Class. Warfare!
Get it? Class warfare! Say it motherfucker, fucking SAY IT!
That's what "environmentalism" is all about. It's about gullible brainwashed morons like you being fucked up the ass by self-righteous egotistical assholes and you begging for more!
Posts
2 comments:
Does the word "nigger" have any real meaning to someone of your generation? I can only guess your age, but I figured (projected, rather, which works well enough to be useful) you grew up in the days when it was just a bad word that bad people called blacks. Calling them stupid by heredity and obnoxious gets the meaning across better, if that is what you meant.
I can't quite tell what your politics are. Do you care very much about poor people? You make statements to that effect and statements of total misanthropy. Or are you just bothered by imbeciles like Greenpeace who make a big show about how little they know about what they speak and do? You've criticized slavery and things "resembling" slavery, which isn't very radical, but does it mean that if transported to Rome, 200 B.C. you would become a radical abolitionist? I certainly wouldn't because I'm a bad person.
Post a Comment