PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
1. Modern environmentalism is, and I mean this in the kindest way, a bastardization of the conservation of the Progressive Era.
Todays devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.
2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelts efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN
3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem ..not people. He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy. Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).
a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Franciscos need for water took precedence. With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections. The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS
5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own. Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain Americas position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.
7. Today, the meaning of environmentalism has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the Watermelon Movement: green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: Pinchots authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior. Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. This was the reason for TRs return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.
Todays devotees are a random mix of a) the pagan religion of Gaia worship, b) folks who believe that human beings are a virus that must be eradicated from the land, c) the ignorant and easily led, and the very strong influence of the Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School.
2. To understand the change in the movement from its earliest days requires a look at Teddy Roosevelts efforts. History Professor Andrew Fisher recently lectured on same via American History TV, C-Span 3, [ ]Error | C-SPAN
3. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem ..not people. He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy. Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).
a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Franciscos need for water took precedence. With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections. The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS
5. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own. Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park. Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6. The TR/Pinchot plan was for the preserves to be multiple use forests: for logging, for grazing, for mining and for recreation. The saw that efficient use is a way to maintain Americas position in the world. Not so for the modern environmentalist.
7. Today, the meaning of environmentalism has been corrupted. More Left-wing politics than science, it is correctly, if pejoratively, called the Watermelon Movement: green on the outside, but red on the inside. It is collectivism disguised as science. It can be traced to ".... July 1935, Germany's Nazi regime headed by Adolf Hitler passed the Reich Nature Protection Law....The law protected nature and the environment in the name of the German people and for their sake,..."
Green, brown and bloody all over - Israeli Culture | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
8. Another important historical footnote: TR left office in what he felt were the capable hands of Taft. But Taft had nowhere near the passion for conservation, and demoted Pinchot. His successor, Ballinger: Pinchots authority was substantially undermined by the election of President William Howard Taft in 1908. Taft later dismissed Pinchot[14] for speaking out against his policies and those of Richard Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior. Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. This was the reason for TRs return to politics, to oppose Republican Taft, and throw the election of 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Clearly, today's inception bears no similarity to Teddy Roosevelt's, or Gifford Pinchot's conservation. It is an abomination.
America sorely needs a leader who recognizes the disaster for America that modern environmentalism bodes.