The Pink Flamingo :: The Radical Green Roots of Anti-Immigration

ON of the great false-hoods of immigration reform is that it is a conservative entity. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead of having roots in conservative thought, it stems, instead, directly from Marxism. It is all about population control and eugenics, and is directly contrary to the very concept of the Republican Party. Part I of this series deals with the evolution of the individual, the role of the value of the one, to the devalue of the individual through collectivism. Through this collectivism came the modern liberal and through the modern liberal came population control - and that's where Immigration Reform comes in to the tale. Part II (tomorrow) will detail the DOCUMENTED rise to power of John Tanton and how he and his associates have co-opted the conservative message to promote their very own version of liberal population control, socialism, radical environmentalism, and the flaunting of the very Constitution of the United States of America.

NOTE: I’ve spent 90% of my life studying history and the humanities. I consider myself a historian. I majored in British Medieval History with an emphasis on the monarchy. My minor was in the humanities. I’ve spent enough time involved in study that I think I can make the claim that I am fairly expert in the subject of Western Civilization, history, humanities and comparative religion. I consider myself well informed on the subject of various civilizations and have an avid interest in ancient archaeology.

One other thing, I am a very prejudiced person when it comes to the superiority of our Western Culture. I think it is unsurpassed in the history of human occupation of this planet. One of the reasons for this superiority is the lack of primitive superstition. Nothing prevents development and growth of a culture or a society like primitive superstition. Nothing destroys a culture like superstition and primitive supposition. The greatest example of this is the implosion and destruction of the Muslim culture because of the growth of cultural primitives and dogmatic barbarism.

Is it possible that the primary groups of people who hold the life of the individual and the one as sacred come out of the Judeo-Christian ethic. From what I know from a friend who is Buddhist, I think they have an emphasis on “the one” and the value of the individual. Never in human history, until the Hebrew people emerged with a religion that emphasized the individual’s relationship with his/her Yahweh were individual humans considered of primary import. Christ continued this with his teachings of love, forgiveness, and salvation. These teachings became the building blocks Western Civilization.

The liberal political correct crowd can scream and yell all day long. Western Civilization, the “modern” world that is post 1776 is responsible for the life-style we have today. Traditional, native cultures do not provide “modern” life-styles based on science and technology.

The basic premise of the United States of America is freedom based on Judeo-Christian values. Contrary to what any special interest group might say, and any politically correct organization might prevaricate, our Constitution is based on the British Constitution. Our Declaration of Independence is based on the Declaration of Arbroath. There are those who will say all of this is racially biased, but that’s life in the fast lane. The great problem with the way history is viewed today is we are implying 21st Century motivations to an 18th Century mind set. Our national character is based on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights along with the Amendments.

Even accounting for the advances in the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome, taking into account the remarkable archaeological discoveries that are still being made in India, and the technological wizardry of China, the emphasis was never on the actual value of the one. Individuals were important, but there was no sanctity of human life. There was no agony for the one.

The Christianization of Europe brought about a change in the way things were viewed, but they were promising moments in time. Humanity was in a fight for survival that did not wan until the early years of the 18th Century when there was an explosion of humanism, of philosophy, and of thoughts about the very nature of – nature. Man (and usually man, women did not have time) waxed philosophical about the beauty and grandeur of nature. The knowledge of the ancients, and the flowering of modern science was infused with Judeo-Christian theology. The lofty music of Bach and Handel provided a soundtrack for an explosion of new ideas.

Until this time there is little thought for the environment. Indeed, there still was little thought. There was waxing poetic about nature, but only to the effect of man’s dominion over it. According to the Old Testament God have given Man dominion over the Earth, and by golly man was going to take God up on that Dominion.

During this time there was still little thought to “humanity” as a whole. Individual religions contemplated the individual and the soul, but that was about it. People were responsible for their own state of being, like the old Scandinavian proverb said, ‘Every tub must stand on its own bottom.’

Nature is noble. The savage is noble.

It was known as the Age of Enlightenment, or my preferred nomenclature, The Age of Reason. Logic, thought, philosophy, and the individual were supreme.. It was Beethoven, Mozart, Newton, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Rosseau, Wollstonecraft, de Tocqueville, Paine, Burke, and Washington. If the individual was important, then how should individuals who were bound into serfdom or slavery be treated?

Abolitionism was nurtured under the auspices of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr. It was promoted by the Society of Friends. It was popularized by Harriet Beecher Stowe. The enslaved individual was suddenly a human being, to be helped, nurtured, and given freedom and the rights of all mankind. It became a political issue for women to embrace. Not only did abolition provide liberation for the slave, it provide a different kind of liberation for women.

In 1854 the Republican Party was born, opposing slavery, opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. The very act of creating the Republican Party was to embrace the freedom of the oppressed individual. It was about the freedom of the one. It was about the realization that all men and women deserved to live in freedom.

That was about the whole of it. The onset of viewing “humanity” as a whole, as part of the ‘collective thought’ arose from the writings of Marx and those around him who took this fascination with nature and independence in an entirely new direction. The Marxist mindset looked at the masses of people. The 19th Century mindset looked at people as individuals. Collectivism from Marxism worked to change the “lot”, the “role” of humanity of a whole. The Judeo-Christian “republican – and independent” mindset was not acceptable.

The “masses” verses the “individual” changed the way people “thought”. The elevation of the collective lead to group “think” or group thought which was diametrically opposite of the enlightened ideas that gave us independence and the value of the one.

As this Marxist ‘theology’ co-opted the imagination of the intellectual, the Judeo-Christian values, already under attack in some circles, were degraded. The modern Marxist delighted in flaunting the old fashioned morals and views of polite society.

In order to perpetuate this sham of Marxism, anyone who went against the enlightened ideas that capitalism was a sham, and materialism was wrong were helping to enslave the collective masses of workers. There should be no social classes, everyone should be as one. Anyone who advocated for the independence of mine, self, and actions were to be denounced and eventually eliminated.

We were all the same. There was no God. Where once man was just slightly below the level of the Angels, he/she was now no better than the insects on the ground or the coyote, or the rocks in the road or the billowing prairie grass. Thanks to the auspices of false prophets like Frank Waters, a false religion was created around the American Indian, now the noble Native American.

Michael Crichton once wrote,

“…Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction….”

The Marxism of the collective and of the newly minted American Liberal, the mind-set who hated anything created by the interloping conquerors of America created this new environmental religion. It is a direct off-shoot of Marxism. It has merged, warped, and entangled with it.

Then came the myth of overpopulation. The modern version came in 1972 with the Limits to Growth and The Population Bomb. There were too many people in the world. Civilizations, according to these ‘experts’ rose and fell because of over-population.