Global warming hysteria: Rise of the eco-religion
By Alisa Craddock
Global warming hysteria has taken on a new level of intensity in the last year, especially since the election, to the point of belligerence. I recently quipped to a priest friend of mine that Liberals know the "Great Chastisement" is coming, and they're gearing up to repackage the Wrath of God as the effects of "Global Warming". It seems that everything that happens is evidence of a great catastrophe looming in our very near future brought about by destruction of our environment due to this controversial theory. And so they keep up the incessant drum beat day and night. As if on cue, all the corporations are focusing on "protecting the environment" in their television advertisements. The schools and universities are having increasing numbers of special events, eco-camps, presentations, and activities dedicated to environmentalism and are trying to get the youth on board with the agenda. Also children's movies, such as "Happy Feet" have a political agenda--nature programs, news stories, Al Gore, even the Supreme Court--everybody's focusing on the environment, and the impending man-made doom that awaits us all. They've been gearing up for it for years, but it has recently been endowed with a new level of urgency, a new ferocity, to the point that scientists who don't get on board with the propaganda are faced with being discredited, even though increasing numbers of them are coming out against the exaggerated assertions of the global warming alarmists.
It is no coincidence, of course. The whole thing is obviously being orchestrated in accordance with the global agenda, which is all on a timeline. This is, like everything else, part of the big plan in the global goal of "Sustainable Development". It's seems like such a high-minded agenda, doesn't it?—"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In other words, we need to find a way to utilize natural resources without depleting or destroying them so that the next generation may also be able to thrive.
To accomplish this, however, requires a complete reorientation of society toward an enviro-groupthink. Everyone must be evangelized in the new eco-religion. Schools don't graduate American citizens any more. Now they are cranking out global citizens—either a global elite (comprised of top students such as those groomed by International Baccalaureate programs) or a new generation of serfs and vassals accustomed to socialist thinking, subservient and dependent. We are being herded toward a goal, our minds, our consciousness, our consciences, our very lives are being formed to the "agenda".
Sustainable Development is an important global objective. Stewardship of the planet and its resources is the responsibility of everyone. But "to whom much is given, much is expected." Those who have means and the skills can positively influence less developed cultures, to help them become self-sustaining. It's a matter of charity. Sometimes it is personal, sometimes it involves communities, sometimes nations. Always it should encompass lifting up your fellow man in dignity and helping him and his community to become self-sustaining (if other countries are going to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations). That's how it should work. Love of neighbor in the Christian sense is not a feeling; it's a decision.
But Sustainable Development as it is envisaged by our global elites involves increased control and oversight of all natural resources, all land and fresh water, oceans, deserts, and mountains; redistribution of wealth; population control; Sound familiar? Included in that agenda is "a progressive transformation of society and a new "ethic" that will include "the relationship between man and nature above all " (Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.) For a good overview of what this involves, see Berit Kjos's article "Saving the Earth."
Now I'm all for curbing the destruction of our environment, and God knows we love wildlife, natural beauty and wonder, clean air and wide open spaces, and we all recognize the need to balance the needs of human populations with the preservation of the environment, but as with everything else this global Trojan horse brings, the language you read and the actions being taken don't quite match. This agenda is being increasingly implemented by unelected NGO's (Non-governmental organizations) and Working Groups that somehow always manage to include the most radical ideologues of the left, the feminists, the Socialists, the anti-Christian crowd, and it is their ideology--secular, materialist, utilitarian and loathing of human life, especially the poor--that is shaping the world.
For example, the CEDAW treaty currently under review in the Senate makes no mention of abortion as a right or a mandate, but in other countries where that treaty has been signed, unelected organs of the UN have compelled poor nations to implement "Women's Reproductive Health Services" (abortion and contraception), refusing them food and medicine and other necessaries, even during a devastating crisis such as an earthquake when emergency assistance is a matter of life and death for many. It is blackmail, pure and simple. You want help for your mudslide victims? Set up reproductive health clinics with condoms and birth control pills and portable aspirators. Is this what Christ meant by "love your neighbor as yourself"? Don't kid yourself—CEDAW is there to ensure that abortion is recognized as a "right" in order to enable the depopulation agenda of the globalists to proceed. It's all part of the population reduction goal under the banner of "sustainable development". There is nothing compassionate about it. It is not for the benefit of women. It is, quite simply, a ruthless agenda to rid the world of "useless eaters", of the poor. Is it right that those who have wealth and status in our world should decide whose lives are "worth" preserving, and whose are not?
A recent report put out by an organization called OPT [Optimum Population Trust] in the UK describes the desired goals in oh-so-reasonable and civilized tones, and yet, if you read the subtext, it is the same old story:
The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has. The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population. "A Population-Based Climate Strategy", May 7, 2007, Optimum Population Trust
The Optimum Population Trust makes a direct connection between climate and population, and implies ominously that the decision about when and how many children a couple should have is not and should not be a private matter. In addition, if you've noticed a sudden increase in costly [as in your tax dollars] proposals to combat this suddenly urgent global warming crisis, you should know that that is by design as well.
Writes the OPT, "A population-based strategy…involves fewer of the taxes, regulations and other limits on personal freedom and mobility now being canvassed in response to climate change – travel taxes, congestion charging, water restrictions, carbon rationing."
That sounds to me like we are subtly being given a choice between sacrificing our comforts and freedoms or participating in population control-based strategies.
An example of such alternate proposals (which apparently are meant to indoctrinate us into a global population reduction mindset) was recently proposed in Denver Colorado's Climate Action Plan, a plan which many in the conservative movement found to be excessive, a direct assault on quality of life. Though some have accused those who reported on it of misleading their readers, the fact is that a plan has been proposed, as reported in a Rocky Mountain News story, and that is consistent with tactics suggested by OPT for the UK.
Since a one-child policy like that in China, a communist country, would not be possible in a freer country like the U.S. or the U.K., at least not in the near future, other means of implementing a population control agenda might be accomplished through increased taxes and other burdens on people to impress on them the urgency of the matter. By increasing red tape and destroying quality of life, you can give the impression of crisis where, in fact, no crisis may exist. All opposition to contraception, abortion, and euthanasia must end in order to implement the radical population reduction goals of the globalists.
That agenda was starkly illustrated last year when Judicial Watch revealed documentary proof that Bill Clinton had pushed for marketing of RU-486 despite the manufacturer's earlier decision not to make it available in the U.S. In a letter to Bill Clinton by Ron Weddington, the husband of one of the Roe v. Wade attorneys that had pushed for legalization of abortion, Weddington had urged the incoming President Clinton to move quickly to legalize RU-486. "Something's got to be done very quickly. Twenty-six million food stamp recipients is (sic) more than the economy can stand...He urged him to "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of the country…Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes," he wrote. "We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more babies."
Though we may agree that it is desirable to get people off welfare and contributing to the economy, nevertheless it is disturbing to hear someone talk about "eliminating" not poverty, not ignorance, not disease, but the people who are in that condition, and of course, those who defend life (the "parishioners"—read Catholics), the very people Margaret Sanger used to describe as "dysgenic stock" (including Catholics), whose elimination she advocated. It was Sanger's eugenics and forced sterilization ideas that so inspired Adolf Hitler.
While in this country, "Working Groups" charged with implementing the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the beginnings of a European Union style North American Union, writing, presumably, the laws that will replace our own sovereign law, complete with tribunals to enforce it, and social security "totalization" with Mexico, the government is busy educating the next generation for "world citizenship," and training them to give up their freedom and allow the state to dictate even what they believe. The eco-religion is the new "ethic" that is intended to supplant Judeo-Christian culture and values. Thus we have, for example, the glorification of Native American spirituality, with its emphasis on nature, and equality between animals and people, while at the same time Christianity, particularly Catholicism with its emphasis on the dignity and worth of each human person from conception to natural death, is denigrated for its opposition to the distribution of condoms in Africa, and is carefully being targeted to be blamed for the climate"crisis".
It has been shown that condoms are ineffective in preventing AIDS infection enough of the time that they provide a false sense of security to those who use them. The Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health both bear that out. In addition, it has been also shown that contraceptives encourage promiscuity, which leads to unwanted pregnancies. Sixty percent of abortions are performed on women or girls who were using some form of artificial birth control. So why did the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs just zero out the funding in the 2008 budget for abstinence education to combat AIDS in third world countries ?
Africa is a veritable laboratory of research on the effectiveness of abstinence education versus condom use to control AIDS and unwanted pregnancy. In Uganda, which had a whopping 30% infection rate, the levels were brought down to 5% by an aggressive public information and education campaign aimed at abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity for those married. Even as AIDS continues to rage in other African nations, many organizations are reluctant to credit abstinence education with the declining AIDS rate, but it is a fact. So if this is true, and if it is known to be true, why continue to promote condom use instead of encouraging abstinence? Uganda has proven that it can be done. So why aren't the organs of the UN promoting it? Why aren't we?
Well, I suspect the reason is two-fold. Number one, AIDS eliminates population. The UN aims to reduce population, so the infection is allowed to rage and to take its course, while the UN pretends to want to control it, and shifts the blame for its spread to the Vatican. Number two, contraceptive use encourages promiscuity, and promiscuity directly affects the formation of families. Healthy family ties lead to a healthy attitude toward the sacredness of human life, and intact families are less likely to be impoverished. Broken or single-parent families increase the poverty and emotional and physical burden on the lone parent. (In the U.S., poverty is largely a condition of single-parent families, as well.) Inevitably the attitude toward the sacredness of human life is dulled, which is necessary for the population control agenda of the globalists to go forward. This is the most insidious agenda of all—the shaping of public attitude against a culture of life to one that sees death as serving the greater good. We must think no more of alleviating the plight of the sufferer, we must think in terms of eliminating those who suffer. Such a callous approach must inevitably visit us where we live, in our moral life, or conscience. As John Paul II charged in his powerful encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), "A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized."
By promoting promiscuity, and thereby the destruction of families, the numbers of "weak or marginalized" persons is increased. The soul becomes hardened as the problem becomes overwhelming. Population control then, in the minds of those who have been properly conditioned, becomes a "humanitarian imperative" and a "global emergency", but the implementation of it is anything but humanitarian. It is no wonder that the words of the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the activities of radical NGOs at the UN directly contradict one another. But I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.