A couple of weeks ago I posted a screed titled “Christians be alert for the “Nudge”; Kian Goh and fighting ‘climate change’ by urbanizing the planet.”
I hope no one doubted me, but just in case, here is an article in the ‘reputable’ British rag, The Guardian, that came across my desk. It is a couple of years old, but illustrates the sort of thinking I was trying to expose.
The presence of such articles in such ‘respectable’ outlets is indicative of a broader, widespread acceptance of these ideas. I directed my comments to Christians, because of all people, they should be on their guard against such social engineering. These social engineers have almost nothing in common with us intellectually, morally, and so on. Worse, their values are often despicable, malignant, and in many cases, outright evil.
In the Guardian piece, titled “Empty half the Earth of its humans. It’s the only way to save the planet” it is argued:
The tendency of people to move to cities, either out of desire or perceived necessity, creates a great opportunity. If we managed urbanisation properly, we could nearly remove ourselves from a considerable percentage of the the planet’s surface. That would be good for many of the threatened species we share this planet with, which in turn would be good for us, because we are completely enmeshed in Earth’s web of life.
Here I’m referring to the plan EO Wilson has named Half Earth. His book of the same title is provocative in all the best ways, and I think it has been under-discussed because the central idea seems so extreme. But since people are leaving the land anyway and streaming into cities, the Half Earth concept can help us to orient that process, and dodge the sixth great mass extinction event that we are now starting, and which will hammer humans too.
The idea is right there in the name: leave about half the Earth’s surface mostly free of humans, so wild plants and animals can live there unimpeded as they did for so long before humans arrived. Same with the oceans, by the way; about a third of our food comes from the sea, so the seas have to be healthy too.
At a time when there are far more people alive than ever before, this plan might sound strange, even impossible. But it isn’t. With people already leaving countrysides all over the world to move to the cities, big regions are emptier of humans than they were a century ago, and getting emptier still. Many villages now have populations of under a thousand, and continue to shrink as most of the young people leave. If these places were redefined (and repriced) as becoming usefully empty, there would be caretaker work for some, gamekeeper work for others, and the rest could go to the cities and get into the main swing of things.
We should be thankful at least that in this plan there isn’t the usual chatter about reducing the size of the population itself via birth control, social conditioning, etc, or a global one child policy:
A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
Like I said, evil.
I don’t know this for sure, as I’d have to take some time to research it, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if, despite not advocating for such measures in the article, Kim Stanley Robinson (author of the Guardian piece), shares Diane Francis’ views (author of the FT piece) on such things and vice-versa. Regardless, I have been reading and researching this topic for more than a decade, and I can assure you that the whole ‘movement’ is infused with these ideas. There may be some differing in the details, but the basic premise, that humanity is to be managed–and they are the managers–is shared by all of them.
Christian: THOU SHALT NOT BE MANAGED.
Historically, it is precisely because Christians don’t allow themselves to be managed that various entities have perceived Christianity to be a threat. This is a truth that goes back to the founding of Christianity, and indeed to its Jewish roots. Modern examples include Communism in general, and more recently, China’s behavior towards religionists of all stripes.
I say this because Christians are allowing themselves to be managed. The current problem is that forces have been set in motion that we aren’t aware of, before many of us were even born. We are accepted assumptions and premises which are toxic to our faith, and not just our faith, but freedom and liberty itself. You can peruse this blog for more on that or contact me for more information.
Now, the fact that these things have been set in motion before our birth is actually related to the Guardian piece, which goes on to say:
With people already leaving countrysides all over the world to move to the cities, big regions are emptier of humans than they were a century ago, and getting emptier still. […] So emptying half the Earth of its humans wouldn’t have to be imposed: it’s happening anyway. It would be more a matter of managing how we made the move, and what kind of arrangement we left behind.
In point of fact, the emptying of the countrysides was part of an overall philosophy that was enacted through various policies, nationally and internationally, back in the 1960s and moving into the 1980s. (See my own post linked above for some hints, and then begin researching it yourself). People did not randomly ‘voluntarily’ decide to vacate the countrysides. Rather, conditions were created and perpetuated in which it was more difficult to live in the rural areas, so people would, in an act of ‘voluntary unconscious selection’, ‘decide’ for ‘themselves’ that they had no future there, and draw the conclusion that the Managers wanted them to draw, ‘for themselves,’ to move to the cities. In the cities, as I wrote in the previous post, “its much easier to condition people when they are all lumped together. ”
In that spirit, the mention of EO Wilson here is quite interesting, as he was actually around back then. It isn’t like this is a novel idea. It is the spirit of the whole mindset. In my article on this, I wrote:
In my extensive studies of eugenics, it has been interesting to observe how so many of the old, supposedly repudiated aspects of eugenics, arose again in the 1960s with a new rationale–fighting ‘over-population’–and then emerged yet again in the present day, but now wrapped in the guise of ‘climate change.’ Why, one would almost think that the goals were the same all along!
And EO Wilson is basically a eugenicist! In the 1970s he created controversy with his ‘social biology’ stance, which many perceived at the time (correctly) to simply be the old eugenics re-worked and re-fashioned so as to once again be considered respectable, and, the way all such noxious secular philosophies seek to frame themselves: SCIENCE!
So, they really are the same people, and they really are just operating out of the same old playbook. Unbeknownst to many, the degree of MANAGING the population these people perceive to be within their proper and appropriate authority is pretty much 100%. That is to say, there is NOTHING in your life that they do not believe is outside the scope of their activities.
I further said:
… things we don’t generally perceive as ‘eugenics’ were, as understood by the eugenicists themselves, part and parcel with ‘eugenics.’ To put it differently: many people today espouse viewpoints that are nearly identical to views espoused by people they view as wicked and evil. That’s not the main point of today’s essay, though. My purpose in this essay is to drive home the fact that people have been trying to achieve certain aims under numerous plans, often deceitfully. The reason they are pushed deceitfully is the same reason the rationale has to be switched up repeatedly: if the real goals were put brazenly and openly, there would be widespread revulsion.
So, whether intentional or not, Robinson is basically promoting a eugenics policy, only 3-4 steps removed from the originators of those policies.
My goal here is the same as in the previous post: “to drive home the fact that people have been trying to achieve certain aims under numerous plans, often deceitfully.” So, I am not keen to dive deep into supporting my contentions, but rather alert the reader to what is afoot and prompt THEM to dive deep into finding out the truth of things. Nonetheless, I think this quote from a 1950s ‘scientist’ of sorts helps convey the mentality we are up against:
We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life: primary, secondary, university and technical education are all concerned with varying stages in the development of the child in adolescent. Those who provide the education, the principles upon which they work, and the people upon whom they work, must all be objects of our interest, for education that ignores the commonsense principles that have been more clearly evolved of recent years is likely to be of indifferent quality. Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our sphere of influence. It needs little imagination to see improvements that could be effected in each of them.
Especially since the last world war we have done much to infiltrate the various social organizations throughout the country, and in their work and in their point of view one can see clearly how the principles for which this society and others stood in the past have become accepted as part of the ordinary working plan of these various bodies. That is as it should be, and while we can take heart from this we must be healthily discontented and realize that there is still more work to be done along this line. Similarly we have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine. Anyone whose memory goes back for even a dozen years can realize how big a change has been effected in the outlook of professional people, while certainly anyone with vision can see how much still remains to be done.
If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity! If better ideas on mental health are to progress and spread we, as the salesmen, must lose our identity. By that I mean that we cannot help so effectively if speaking for a National Council or any other body as we can when we make a more subtle approach adapted to the particular circumstances of the moment. It really wouldn’t matter if no one ever heard of this Council again provided that the work was done. Let us all, therefore, very secretly be “fifth columnists”.
It really wouldn’t matter if no one ever heard of this Council again provided that the work was done. Let us all, therefore, very secretly be “fifth columnists”.
…it seems clear that we would wish, all of us, to do something to make our race more adventurous, more adaptable, happier and, if possible, more intelligent.
So there you have the attitude all bundled up nicely from a real treat of a fellow (I’m sure you can’t wait to google him), from the eugenics-laced mindset to the explicit aim to carry out their work so discreetly that people take on the jobs themselves, never understanding where the ideas came from in the first place.
This is all well and good if you are a progressive leftist statist nutjob. For such people, the earth is the only eternal thing. Per Robinson:
There is no alternative way; there is no planet B. We have only this planet, and have to fit our species into the energy flows of its biosphere. That’s our project now. That’s the meaning of life, in case you were looking for a meaning.
But for us Christians, who know better, we can never accept such an outlook.
The whole “Spaceship Earth” idea has been around a long time and pretty much all of the dire predictions of the eugenicists/climate change activists of the 1960s have been shown to be absolute rubbish. At the time, they said we faced certain disaster by the year 2000, which gave them a solid 40 years to do their work. It all continues to be rubbish, but I think we must be a little concerned that today they think we only have 10 years BEFORE THE END OF THE PLANET emerges.
It turned out that Ehrlich, Holdren, et., al, were quite wrong. There are other alternatives.
But these can only be discovered by refusing to accept the premise.
And don’t ever, ever, think you can be ‘allies’ with them. Their goals are incompatible with your goals.
They know this.
It is time that you figure it out, too.
PS, live in the city, the country, the suburbs, whatev. I don’t care. But live where you live for reasons that are your own, informed by Biblical values–not by the values of THESE people.