The sanction of the victim
By Tom DeWeese
web
posted April 16, 2001
Dominating every other priority of the environmental movement is the drive to destroy the concept of private property. Those who seek to rule and regulate your every action know that, without the right to own and control property, there can be no economy, no rule of law. A capitalist system ceases to exist without property rights and, without this fulcrum, no other rights are possible. If you cannot own property, you become the property of the State.
One doesn't take the greatest industrial society on earth and turn it into a collectivist gulag overnight. For this deception to succeed, the perpetrators must first secure the sanction of the victim. They need you to voluntarily give up your property, your wealth, and your liberty.
From the beginning the Greens' adherence to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism had to be hidden. Instead, they needed something else. The threat of danger is a good tool. The greater the threat, the less the objection to giving up one's liberty. World-wide environmental Armageddon became the instrument of choice.
The Greens, having spent the 1970's warning against a new Ice Age, reversed themselves and conjured up the threat of Global Warming that would melt the polar ice caps and flood the world. We were told we use "too much" energy.
We had to learn to "conserve." Industry, in many cases, accepted regulations that forced it to spend billions creating and installing new technologies to counter the "threat."
Faced with the unfounded charge that countless species were supposedly vanishing, the alarmed public supported regulations that shut down timber and mining enterprises. Ozone holes, acid rain, dolphin-safe fishing became the mantra, all driven by a hysteria plotted at the level of twelve-year-old girls in a pet shop pleading with the shop owner to "let the poor little animals out!"
As the propaganda mill poured out one unsubstantiated horror story after another, science was bastardized to fit the political agenda. Reason and truth weren't necessary. And now the hysteria over unsubstantiated environmental disaster has grown so strong the stage has been set for international forces to step in via the United Nations. Sovereign nations, they say, can't be trusted to take care of these problems on their own.
 Babbitt: reborn as 60s radical |
The hysteria created by bogus science has been sold to this nation using all of the outlets manned by the once youthful revolutionaries of the 1960's. Recently the former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, called for a return to 1960's student activism. "We have to awaken the government," said Babbitt, criticizing the Bush Administration. For eight years during the Clinton Administration a war was waged from the highest levels of government against property rights.
The green agenda has invaded every aspect of our society. The implementation of the new driving force of the environmental agenda called "Sustainable Development" involves every agency of the Federal Government, and is seeping into state and local agencies. It affects how our housing is built, what crops to grow, the foods we eat, the medicines we can take, and the industries that can and cannot survive. It's in our schools, in our workplaces, and in our social gatherings.
The Green agenda is the culmination of the agenda first devised in the
streets of the 1960's by youthful revolutionaries. Today, we continue
to risk granting them the sanction of their victims. 
Tom DeWeese, editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, is a frequent contributor. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
- Environmental slavery by Tom
DeWeese (April 9, 2001)
Americans are being choked to death with environmentalist measures...except that those measures aren't designed to save the environment. Tom DeWeese says they are designed to kill off something else - Getting the policy right by Henry Lamb
(April 9, 2001)
Henry Lamb says the energy crisis is finally forcing Americans to choose what side of the philosophical divide they stand on