Remember Wendell Berry's wise advice? The major issue for us today--however much it's obscured by George Soros' efforts to keep the undead Communist Party shuffling around--is whether we'll address human overpopulation in what this web site calls Green or Greedhead ways. (This web site is not going to give up either "liberal" or "Green" to the supporters of Big Totalitarian Government, which is inherently Greedhead. Wendell Berry liked the terms "nesters" or "boomers"; since "boomers" is often used as a neutral word for everyone born between 1945 and 1970, that pair of labels doesn't work for me.)
Green ways mean more enlightened private ownership of land as small farms. We have the potential to actualize the biblical prophet Isaiah's vision of a paradise where everyone had "his own vine and his own fig tree." This means less contact and thus less conflict among people and less need for governmental regulations; not eliminating the rule of law, but greatly reducing the demand for it. Overpopulation can be addressed by simply respecting women's real choice--which, when women aren't being bullied by men, must always be to start only as many babies as it's feasible for them to bring up properly.
Greedhead ways mean bigger government taking over more land, herding more people into miserable, unsustainable, overcrowded neighborhoods where surplus population can be quickly eliminated by a few more events like Hurricane Katrina or the 2001 attack on New York City, and taking control of the medical care system in such a way as to eliminate "antisocial elements" (e.g. older people, poor people, religious people, political dissidents, any category the people in power might happen not to like) with what-a-pity, what-a-coincidence malpractice--as it might be using contaminated vaccine for those mandatory vaccinations people are currently screaming that we all need to have to protect the immune-compromised. (Tip: With or without vaccinations, all healthy people are and always will be walking germ cultures that can kill the immune-compromised. The immune-compromised can best extend their life expectancies by quarantining themselves.)
Greedhead ways appeal to the very young, who don't remember how they have (NOT) worked when tried in other countries. Reportedly Congresschick Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adorably lisped to reporters that she thought eighty years ought to be long enough for anyone to live. (Revision: There's no documentation that she said those words. The famous "quote" appears to be a paraphrase, which AOC's fans now say shows a misunderstanding. But what she actually said could easily be interpreted as a "dog whistle" endorsement of that idea.) Well, funnily enough, I think that for young people who can't foresee the generation after them replacing "eighty" (or "a hundred and twenty" for that matter) with "forty," thirty years is probably long enough to live. You don't see that one coming, you seriously need to throw yourself on Christian concepts of the right to life, because on Darwinian concepts you do not have any.
Though it's not that Republicans or cultural "conservatives" aren't seduced by greedhead notions and totalitarian power grabs either. (Tangent alert: this news story has bothered me.) This week Congress had to vote on a horrible proposal to require life support for any wiggling fetus that was made visible by either spontaneous or voluntary abortion after the tissue mass had reached a size suggesting it had been growing for six weeks or more. We are not talking here about fetuses that even raise anyone's hope that they're going to become precious living babies. A six-week fetus is a stomach-turning blob of glup, likely to be found in a toilet bowl, where it would raise complaints against a co-worker who failed to make sure it flushed down on the first try. Which species it belongs to is not obvious to the naked eye, even if anyone got close enough to confirm that it was a fetus as distinct from something dropped on the floor by a careless butcher, which few people would care to do. A six-month fetus does, however, usually clean up looking like a baby, raising heartbreaking hopes that it can be nursed along until it becomes one. Boys are more often conceived than girls but less often viable; a lot of spontaneously aborted six-month fetuses look like the sons parents wanted.
Twenty years ago I worked on a document urging more support for efforts to nurture aborted six-month fetuses into life. Twenty years ago I lived near a hospital where doctors were doing that--or thought they were. I would have loved to report that by now some of those maybe-babies had become babies, then children, then teenagers, and were now in college. Thousands of Americans have been waiting for that to be reported. It is not being reported. It is not happening. Much as many of the people who've seen six-month fetuses want them to be babies, to wear the clothes and answer to the names they've picked out for the babies they wanted those fetuses to be...a baby is a living thing, and a fetus outside its mother's body is not a living thing. If incubated fetuses feel anything, they probably feel the kind of pain adult humans fear being dragged through when they make those "Living Wills" demanding that they be allowed to die in peace. It might be worth subjecting them to that kind of pain if they were going to live. They are not. Few survive for a week after being removed from life support.
So, say a fetus, like that premature kitten Samantha-cat and I spent a few hours trying to resuscitate, this time last year, has wiggled before it died. In the natural course of events it wouldn't be able to breathe and would die in a hour or so, whenever the oxygen in its blood gives out. Artificial stimulation, like my gently stroking and Samantha's vigorously licking that kitten, might get it to wiggle longer, even take a breath or make a squeaky noise. But it's not going to keep breathing, squeaking, and wiggling on its own power. It's a dead thing being artificially forced to move. Nature has not actually given it a "right to life."
I know it's not easy to accept the fact that a fetus is never going to be a baby. Especially not when it's grown close enough to look like a miniature baby. Almost every living thing on Earth, including some members of predator species, has parental instincts that make us want to nurture babies of any kind, at least until we can hand them off to other people. You want, I want, almost everyone wants, to wipe the squick off that maybe-baby and snuggle it. If we're not careful we'll start calling ourselves its Mama--er, um, Papa, or Nana...and we'll cry when it dies, too, even if it belongs to a different species, even if it's the offspring of members of other species we didn't think needed to reproduce.
Which is how it's possible for our Congressional Representatives to have fallen for this horrible bill, and also why it's vital that they kill it. How long can a fetus be forced to suffer on life support? Months. How much does it cost? Thousands. At whose expense? Probably not that of the men who bully the majority of women who make that "choice" into "choosing" abortion...
Be nice to your U.S. Representatives this week, Gentle Readers. They have had a rough week. This bill made you feel like a monster of cruelty if you knew better than to support it, and like a monster of cruelty if you thought ahead far enough to oppose it. Nobody should have had to vote on it. This bill came straight out of the Pet Sematary (I'll pass on the remake, but readers who don't remember the original movie might want to buy tickets). Nobody can really blame the kid for wanting to revive the cat, or the father for wanting to revive the kid, but when they do...you just have to keep telling yourself that it is, thank Heaven, only a movie, and all the blood is fake. In real life the artificially undead just lie around "vampirizing" funds; they don't recover enough vitality to attack the living.
I do understand, pro-life readers. Thirty-five years ago I added to my own mother's misery by not wanting to accept that nature did not intend me to have a baby brother, just like some of you. If the option of tormenting that little thing for a year had existed, I would have wanted to have a real baby brother, to be named John Kevin in honor of his godfather John Kerby, and learn to sip milk from the same cup I'd used, and so on and so forth, enough to want people to chip in and pay for that. Thirty-five years ago the option hadn't been tried, and hadn't failed every time. By now we've had the opportunity to learn...
This is the kind of thing I mean by "Poison Green." This web site once identified five shades of green we don't want to be: Sick Green, Bitter Green...or Poison Green, the color of poison ivy, whose bright green leaves have an undertone of deep red.
Red only got to be the Republican Party color on television after the failure of the Soviet Union. In the twentieth century everyone knew red was the Russian color. The Soviet color. The color of tyranny as opposed to American Democracy.
That's the undertone of Poison Green. Poison Green ideas take a nice healthy ecologically sound idea, like the idea that living things have a right to life, and poison it with a fascist boondoggle, like the idea that everybody needs to be taxed to allow the federal government to oversee a plan to fund a failed medical experiment by refusing to concede dead things' right to die in peace.
Generally anything that increases the size, funding, or power of our federal government is likely to be an unsustainable boondoggle. Our federal government has already outgrown sustainability.
Generally anything that increases the total population level, or the level of population density in our cities, is likely to be a literally deadly boondoggle. Already we have increasing homosexual and transsexual lobbying groups. That these groups have any influence is due to their overwhelming tendency to skew rich, White, and male--identifying with a "sexual minority" gives rich White men a chance to grab back whatever they've conceded to historic victim groups--but that they have any size...Well, in animal populations, of almost any species, sterility and "sexual minority" behavior appear whenever the population has exceeded its optimal density. That these reactions are common across species suggests that, whatever we may have to say about certain voluntary behaviors among "sexual minority" lobbyists, the reaction is merely biological and should be considered without hostility. That they are common to overcrowded populations suggests that we may need to be planning new residential construction along guidelines like "Every child should have a room of its own" and "Every child should have its own section of the family's vegetable garden."
In animal populations, if non-reproductive sexual behavior fails to relieve population density, we see increasing incidences of diseases and patterns of really bizarre behavior. Some species collapse from bacterial or viral plagues; some rove in packs, consuming all the food available in one place and moving on, which works for ants and grasshoppers better than it would for humans; many start eating things they don't normally eat, often cannibalizing their own kind, especially the offspring of others of their own kind.
In order to prevent mass deaths from plagues and violent insanity, as well as natural disasters and acts of war, we need to be moving away from the trend for young people to live in apartments after marriage. We need to recover the perspective that read Kay Thompson's Eloise as a sad story about a poor little rich child, and Elizabeth Enright's Four-Storey Mistake as a story about how parents should try to bring up children.
I posted some time ago that "we need more affordable housing," and then, having thought better of it, that we need "houses, not 'housing' projects." Regular readers will recognize this as a change of word choices, not of visions. What I have in mind is the number of houses that have recently been repossessed by money lenders because people weren't able to pay for them. We need to keep these private, fully detached, often very nice houses standing, not to replace them with stack-and-pack apartment blocks. We need to lower the price of houses back to a level where it becomes normal for young working parents to be able to afford private homes where they can bring up healthy children.
I've said for many years that although I don't support the idea of requiring government to oversee these things, I think we need to be severely limiting population density, especially in Washington, D.C., and its suburbs, where greedheads were starting to ruin the quality of life before I left. After a few years of "growth" and increasing population density, newspapers reported, Arlington became one of those places like New York, or San Francisco, where someone had a heart attack at a bus stop and lay where he fell for hours before anyone noticed that he was dead. In the Arlington of small, cheap, shabby but private houses where I was a Bright Young Thing, if someone fell over, or failed to move when the last bus left a bus stop, regardless of age or race or gender, anyone would have offered to help the person. But callousness about the lives of living members of our own species is one of those behavior changes that set in when sterile sexual behaviors fail to reduce population density.
Poison Greens have been screaming for a long time about herding people into urban "sacrifice zones" in order to preserve the biodiversity of human-hostile species, like wolves and bears, to whom they babble about returning all the nicer, cleaner parts of North America. If anyone seriously thinks the long-term strategy behind this type of "social planning" is to benefit bears, I'd like to sell that person this utterly fantastic bridge I just inherited, in Brooklyn. No, the human-friendly parts of North America will be reclaimed by more humans, probably not as nice or as ecologically conscious as the old farmers who are being urged to move into nice little apartments, certainly not with any interest in preserving a democratic republic or sustaining a common wealth for ourselves, our neighbors, and our posterity. Greedheads want to grab the wealth now, and to Hell with posterity...although Hell, Michigan, is probably too livable for them to be willing to respect private families' right to keep it.
Personally, although I've been monitoring these things for a long time before I considered blogging, I think of "social planning" as a sort of rest from my current field of study and activism, which is glyphosate. (Yes, there are connections, on a spiritual level if not on a physical level...but youall do not have to read my private prayers here.) I note that the desire to impose our "social planning" on other people, in any way more aggressive than writing science fiction about it, is an abnormal, unhealthy symptom that's probably caused by overcrowding. Monitoring the unsustainable idiocies of the "social planners" has been Tom DeWeese's field, so here are his words about the French activist group, Novethic, which he says is linked to Cutie-Pie Ocasio-Cortez's silly little "Green New Deal" bill:
"
I have discovered an explosive new document hidden on a French Non-governmental organizations’ (NGO) website.
Yes, France has its own Green New Deal, and foreign NGO’s are often more open and honest in their intentions than American NGOs who hide their real goals in innocent-sounding rhetoric.
And remember, these Agenda 21/Green New Deal policies are GLOBAL. The whole world is targeted to enforce these policies.
Here are just a few of the details this French green group – called Novethic – has revealed of the insane regulations that will be the used to enforce our own Green New Deal. (I’m quoting them directly from the document):
Yes, France has its own Green New Deal, and foreign NGO’s are often more open and honest in their intentions than American NGOs who hide their real goals in innocent-sounding rhetoric.
And remember, these Agenda 21/Green New Deal policies are GLOBAL. The whole world is targeted to enforce these policies.
Here are just a few of the details this French green group – called Novethic – has revealed of the insane regulations that will be the used to enforce our own Green New Deal. (I’m quoting them directly from the document):
- “New single family home construction, except trailers, prohibited. New buildings must be exclusively condos with a maximum per capita living area of 320 square feet.”
- “For short trips less than 3 miles, the standard should be ‘soft transport’ (bicycles)… Mandatory fixed working hours in order to simplify the implementation of public transport and carpooling.”
The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine.
- “Quotas to limit the consumption of imported products. Especially coffee, chocolate, exotic fruits…ban on substitutable processed foods, sodas, all junk food, hamburgers, pizzas, pasta, chicken nuggets…Meat consumption to decrease by 10% per year from 2020 to 55 pounds per person per year in 2030…the consumption of dairy products will follow the same trend.”
Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal, the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
The Sustainablists have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and admitted that their goal isn’t just “voluntary environmental protection.”
Instead, they are now openly revealing that their real goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty seven years.
Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.
Keep in mind, each of the quotes in bold above is from a real document detailing the extent of these tyrannical policies intended to destroy our culture, control how you live, and what you eat.
Over these years elected officials have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured that their plans were just environmental protection - just good policy for future generations. Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.
"
More than one person or group can, of course, get behind an idea. Poison Green groups' agendas usually come wrapped up inside a True Green idea, like walking or bicycling to work, with toxic ideas, like forcing all working people to live in cities, hidden inside...but there is no doubt that crowding-crazy Europeans hope to be the ones to take over the sweet little old family farms we've let ourselves be told were unaffordable, or unsustainable, or in need of too much "greening up" because regulations were not actually written for the purpose of greening up anything.The Sustainablists have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and admitted that their goal isn’t just “voluntary environmental protection.”
Instead, they are now openly revealing that their real goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty seven years.
Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.
Keep in mind, each of the quotes in bold above is from a real document detailing the extent of these tyrannical policies intended to destroy our culture, control how you live, and what you eat.
Over these years elected officials have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured that their plans were just environmental protection - just good policy for future generations. Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.
"
This is not an issue we can safely trust to Donald Trump, Gentle Readers. It is one we need to keep in the minds of our elected officials. We need to demand policies that return more families to single-family homes, preferably True Green small sustainable farms. To pick just one example, people can walk and bicycle more without being herded into cities and forced to go to work at specified hours; they can work at and from their homes, and save money by renting cars, when they want them, from a community fleet.
No comments:
Post a Comment