Environmentalism is not the same thing as Eugenics

I promised that I would start a thread on this while posting on another thread, so here I am. A lot has been made on conspiracy forums about the link between certain environmentalist memes and eugenics, and I will not argue that environmentalist organizations have not been infected with the eugenics meme. It is the interpretation given of that fact by many on these forums with which I take issue.

The argument is that environmentalism is bad because of the influence of population malthusians. It is an argument that is most popular in countries like the United States where people have very little formal education in philosophy or the history of ideas. The assumption is made that because people high up in environmental organizations may have an allegiance to the New World Order that somehow environmentalism *IS* New World Order. A correlation is interpreted in light of simplistic causation. Phenomenological correlations are then transferred in to being equations of definition.

The argument is similar to the one made by atheists against all religion simply because religion has been used to foment wars and crusades. The assumption is made by them that Christianity is a made up religion for the cause of starting wars because of the Crusades. The possibility that Constantine might have taken over a previously pacifistic religion and neutralized it as a threat to Rome is one that eludes the simplistic thinking of old and new atheists, or at least new atheists since the old ones were willing to consider this possibility. The notion that the history of Christianity might be complex, not easy to understand, is one that requires an ability to think in an analog way.

By a similar comparison, the possibility that the System has infiltrated environmentalism and neutralized it as a threat by using COINTELPRO tactics eludes most conspiracist critics of environmentalism. The most intelligent among them cannot see this because conspiracists tend to see the world in digital and not analog ways. Environmentalism is a threat to the corporate system in and of itself. That is why it must be infiltrated, through foundations, through infiltration, and through a misleading of sincere environmentalists to the belief that coercive population control is the way to get population under control when western countries have been able to do it simply by letting loose birth control and personal choice.

The same system that cr*ps up the planet then turns around and tells us that we have too many kids. That is much like the Catholic Church and other organized religions making our lives a sin while their clergy engage in extracurricular activities with school children. It is hypocritical, and it is right to call it what it is. Again, it is the interpretation that I object to. Remember that Malthusianism is complex. It is not simply about population control. Nineteenth century Malthusians actually wanted a high population, believe it or not, because then that population can be culled to select "the best." Note how the same foundations that today want population control were once in favor of high populations, how they actually go back and forth on this issue.

Just yesterday it was coercive population control (Kissinger in the 70's), now it is a denial of birth control. They go back and forth because the real agenda is not less people. The real agenda is control of human biology and control of the human genome. The same forces that domesticated plants and animals now want to domesticate humans. Species become extinct so that THEIR Disney Land planet can be populated by genetically engineered animals of their choice. Paranoid? Why are they letting so many species go extinct? Also, whole populations of humans are encouraged to go extinct through wars, genocides, AIDS and the like. Will we see genetically engineered humans to come?

I don't claim to have the full truth. What I am objecting to is the tendency of conservatives to take a high horse and claim to oppose eugenics when Republican and conservative ideologues have been pushing eugenicist memes for decades now. The same hypocrisy may exist on the left, for sure, and I call it when I see it.

People, do some research on the issue of "re-wilding." It is a concept whose time has come.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


You had me until the atheist comment no offense, but you blatantly attack us. Many atheist believe in enviromental concerns, you just put down part of your audience. I would advise using a different argument.

reply to post by KwisatzHaderach


I made a comparison between two simplistic arguments. Not all atheist arguments are simplistic, but the one I cited is simplistic.

it apparently it is for bill gates, monsanto, tptb, and most any corp/gov that sacrifices lives (human or otherwise) in the name for preserving some amount of the evironment for "their own".

but yea.. the objectivemost difference?

environmentalism is preservative altruism

eugenics is destructive culling

reply to post by EarthEvolves


Seeing the sort of crap comming from politicians in the name of "environmentalism" the perception that the environmental movements have been "co-opted" isn't hard to come to. I'm not the 1st to say/see this. but rather than a bunch of alex-jones stuff, here's my own "scientific" POV...

1. Ethanol - burns food and produces 10x the CO2. C02 ISN't the warming cause either. But this sort of land use for fuel takes away from the food supply and makes both food and fuel more expensive (profits the 1%).
2. Warming - maybe - but more likely sun-spot and methane release related. Investments and prioritization of alternative power would be better than CO2 tax extortion.
3. Drilling - nobody seems to notice all the methane released (warming gas). GOM leak was 75% methane.
4. Alternative power - I've patented a propeller that will make wind cheeper than gas-turbine. But nobody seems to be investing in it other than my past patent-filing sponsor who only "filed it". There are also solar-hot-water-tube technologies and such that again look to be great ROIs, better than more deadly fracking...
5. Fracking - what a nightmare mess to sacred water. The "secret ingredients" as well as disturbed nasty elements near to the surface that come up is poisoning the water... and opening a new water market. Its amazing how manipulated the political class is by the fracking $powers.
6. Nuclear - shutting down the power plants without dealing with the precarious fuel-pools is STUIPD. The percarious "fuel pools" beceome even more percarious with 1 less source of power for the life-area critical water pumps. Without those they do "melt down" like fukushima did. Thorium reactors could "re-process" the nasty "spent fuel" into manageable material while producing power. Otherwise we're left with megatons of really dangerous stuff sitting in elevated water pools that go boom when the pumps fail or the pool leaks too much water.
7. Clathrate Ice - its another source of both methane and fresh water, sitting in vast quantities all over the ocean bottoms. Harvesting it before a changing ocean current melts it just might prevent a "tipping point". Such "tipping point" appears like it may have happened before, caused a temp-spike followed by an ice age.

Enjoy. I'm an "environmentalist" at heart but not part of any of the co-opted $ manipulated environmentalist (terrorist) organizations.

"5. Fracking - what a nightmare mess to sacred water. The "secret ingredients" as well as disturbed nasty elements near to the surface that come up is poisoning the water... and opening a new water market. Its amazing how manipulated the political class is by the fracking $powers."

You environmentalist! Ahh! You must be a terrorist who wants to kill us all!!!! You should be forbidden to speak ever again! (Sarcasm intended)

I think it is hypocritical when someone espouses environmental views but then attacks someone else for doing so. You should appeal to this lady, and maybe get her to see that some aspects of her position has been manipulated by NWO forces. That would be fine. An open letter. A Youtube video, OK. But to attack her so viciously and then turn around and espouse environmentalist positions yourself?

reply to post by KwisatzHaderach


I actually agree with your post; as a fellow brother of ats all I'm saying is that it is better to be courteous, than rude. Although the rant forum can be a good way to release steam.

reply to post by KwisatzHaderach


Are you responding to me or someone else? If to me, then which comment?

Please clarify.