Why environmentalist are genocidal mass murderers

Andre Jute wrote:
environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.

Tom Sherman then opined:
Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
has the business community, since most wars have been driven by business
interests.

A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.

We cannot count he cost of banning DDT: just the deaths from a one of
the many by-effects of banning DDT are uncountable; a total is
impossible to tally. DDT was the only effective control on the killer
malaria. Every year since DDT was banned, millions of the poorest
people on earth have been killed by malaria. Every year millions of
the poorest people on earth continue to be killed by malaria while
DDT, now declared innocent, remains banned for outdoor use. These tens
of millions, perhaps already hundreds of millions of deaths of poor
women and children, and their fathers and husbands, are the direct
result of banning DDT. Every environmentalist, whether or not he was
alive when this happened, is guilty of benefitting by the success of
the campaign to ban DDT, because the fear that campaign inspired in
politicians is one of the reasons politicians do not today clamp down
on the irrationality of the environmentalists. In short,
environmentalists today benefit by the frame of mind created through a
monstrous genocide for which only environmentalists stand in the dock.

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that just the deaths from
malaria caused by the banning of DDT under environmental pressure
inspired by her book, makes Carson a greater mass murderer than Jossph
Stalin, Mao Ze-Dung and Pol Pot put together (hell, she makes Pol Pot,
who killed only a few million, look like a bit player).

Let me repeat, there was no known case of human cancer from DDT. None
has been proven since the banning of DDT. It was all a "What if..."
scare of the kind we're still seeing from the environmentalists.

Of course, DDT was more effective than anything else then available or
since invented against the common pests that destroy the crops grown
in the third world. Once DDT was banned, starvation was sure to
follow, and it was predicted at the time, and it was pointed out at
the time, that the deaths by starvation when the crops unprotected by
DDT were eaten by pests, would be directly traceable to the banning of
DDT by environmental hysteria. But by now, with the tens of millions
dead of malaria, what's another billion dead of starvation over the
years since DDT was banned? They change only the magnitude of the case
that the environmental movement is the largest mass murderer in human
history.

I think it entirely right that environmentalists should burn in
Purgatory for all eternity.

***
It would only a fraction of the costs of the totally inefficient Kyoto
Agreement to give all the world's poor clean water and primary health
care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive and
feed themselves.

It would cost one sixth of what, on hand of the Stern Report, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown will suggest to the world be spent on
fighting global warming (just when there has been no global warming
for a decade!), to give all the world's poor clean water and primary
health care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive
and feed themselves.

Now who really cares about the poor and the sick and the starving? Not
the environmentalists! They care about having the power to enforce
their irrational mob religion.

Stern, incidentally, proposes a carbon tax. It would, for instance, be
levied on the cargo-miles of foodstuffs imported into Europe from
those selfsame poor countries where the environmentatlists are already
committing a genocide by the continued ban on DDT.

Ask yourself how all this appears from a hut in the third world as to
parents listening to their children crying with hunger. Selfish is the
word that comes to mind, but it is really too small a word for a
genocide of the helpless by smug but powerful environmentalists.

*******

Let's look at that meretricious piece of crap from Tom Sherman again:
Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
has the business community,

I"ve just demonstrated that environmentalists from the beginning were
the greatest mass murderers the world has ever seen, and to this day,
and for the foreseeable future, remain genocidally dangerous to the
poor and the voiceless.

since most wars have been driven by business
interests.

Really? You should read a little history, Tom. The two largest and
most destructive wars in history were fought for the pride of two men,
Kaiser Wilhelm and Georges Clemenceau, who was already dead when the
war fought for his pride started.

World War One was fought because the German Kaiser wanted an empire as
glorious as that of his cousin Bertie, who was King of England. The
business interests in Germany were no fools: they knew that the
British Empire, though it glittered, cost more than it benefited the
nation (look it up -- modern studies have confirmed that the gut
instinct of the German mercantile classes was right: the British
Empire cost more to administer than it brought in). German business,
as represented by the Chancellor, was dead against the war, and you
may include Bertha von Krupp (or more precisely her hushand, who ran
her family's businesses) in that; they were very bitter that they were
not permitted to arm France fully before the Emperor forced the war.

World War Two became inevitable when that idiot Wilson, President of
the United States, rubbed wrong Lloyd George, Prime Minister of
England and a compromiser from way back, the one man Wilson had to
have onside for his dream of a lasting peace to be realized, in
consequence, Llloyd George, against the advice of his advisors (who
included such diverse men as Maynard Keynes, Jan Smuts -- who would
later write the Declaration of Human Rights the UN still uses, and the
arms merchant Basil Zaharoff), sided with Clemenceau, the Tiger of
France, when he wanted a peace that avenged French humiliation in
1870. That unmagnanimous peace guaranteed the second world war as the
magnanimity of the British in not demanding a destructive peace after
WW2, and the huge generosity of the Americans in making that peace
prosperous and democratic via the Marshall Plan, guaranteed the peace
we live in, which is of a length and a prosperity quite unknown in
human history.

Neither of these huge wars had anything to do with business interests;
in both cases the commercial interests were horrified at the wars.

*******
As for your remark the other day about many wars since WW2, so what?
They're little wars, police actions. Dictators at home, some listed
above, have killed more people every year for no reason at all than
were killed in all those declared wars. Joe Stalin in the 1920s had
between 3-6 million orphaned children running wild in the countryside
machine-gunned; he thought they might be infected with venereal
disease. The world hardly noticed. But you want to whine about a few
companies providing services when Iraq is forcibly democratized. I say
good for George Bush, and wonder why his dad didn't finish the job.
(Bill Clinton wanted to finish the job but was distracted by the
bother America's petty moralists blew up about Monica Lewinsky.) I
also say it is a damn good thing that the military is forced to
privatise services: without competition, the price of having the
military provide the same service would skyrocket. I just don't see
your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government. It's
leftie bull****, and you know it; if George Bush didn't go into Iran,
you'd now be whining that he was a coward who lets Saddam get away
with genocide.

*******

Try to look up from the saplings to the forest, Tom.

Andre Jute
Well-read

Andre Jute wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.

Tom Sherman then opined:
Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
has the business community, since most wars have been driven by business
interests.

A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.

We cannot count he cost of banning DDT: just the deaths from a one of
the many by-effects of banning DDT are uncountable; a total is
impossible to tally. DDT was the only effective control on the killer
malaria. Every year since DDT was banned, millions of the poorest
people on earth have been killed by malaria. Every year millions of
the poorest people on earth continue to be killed by malaria while
DDT, now declared innocent, remains banned for outdoor use. These tens
of millions, perhaps already hundreds of millions of deaths of poor
women and children, and their fathers and husbands, are the direct
result of banning DDT. Every environmentalist, whether or not he was
alive when this happened, is guilty of benefitting by the success of
the campaign to ban DDT, because the fear that campaign inspired in
politicians is one of the reasons politicians do not today clamp down
on the irrationality of the environmentalists. In short,
environmentalists today benefit by the frame of mind created through a
monstrous genocide for which only environmentalists stand in the dock.

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that just the deaths from
malaria caused by the banning of DDT under environmental pressure
inspired by her book, makes Carson a greater mass murderer than Jossph
Stalin, Mao Ze-Dung and Pol Pot put together (hell, she makes Pol Pot,
who killed only a few million, look like a bit player).

Let me repeat, there was no known case of human cancer from DDT. None
has been proven since the banning of DDT. It was all a "What if..."
scare of the kind we're still seeing from the environmentalists.

Of course, DDT was more effective than anything else then available or
since invented against the common pests that destroy the crops grown
in the third world. Once DDT was banned, starvation was sure to
follow, and it was predicted at the time, and it was pointed out at
the time, that the deaths by starvation when the crops unprotected by
DDT were eaten by pests, would be directly traceable to the banning of
DDT by environmental hysteria. But by now, with the tens of millions
dead of malaria, what's another billion dead of starvation over the
years since DDT was banned? They change only the magnitude of the case
that the environmental movement is the largest mass murderer in human
history.

I think it entirely right that environmentalists should burn in
Purgatory for all eternity.

Mr. Jute overlooks all the effects of DDT and the products it breaks
down to on birds, useful insects and other animals. Glad to see
revisionist history is alive and well.

Mr. Jute fails to mention that the large multinational pharmaceutical
companies have little interest in developing drugs that would help dark
skinned people in less developed countries, in favor of developing more
profitable drugs for aging baby boomers non life threatening problems.
Mr. Jute also fails to mention the corporate greed that would not allow
for many to afford life-saving drugs even if they were developed.

***
It would only a fraction of the costs of the totally inefficient Kyoto
Agreement to give all the world's poor clean water and primary health
care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive and
feed themselves.

It would cost one sixth of what, on hand of the Stern Report, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown will suggest to the world be spent on
fighting global warming (just when there has been no global warming
for a decade!), to give all the world's poor clean water and primary
health care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive
and feed themselves.

Now who really cares about the poor and the sick and the starving? Not
the environmentalists! They care about having the power to enforce
their irrational mob religion.

The US/European based corporations and their client governments
certainly do not give a damn about helping these people.

Stern, incidentally, proposes a carbon tax. It would, for instance, be
levied on the cargo-miles of foodstuffs imported into Europe from
those selfsame poor countries where the environmentatlists are already
committing a genocide by the continued ban on DDT.

Ask yourself how all this appears from a hut in the third world as to
parents listening to their children crying with hunger. Selfish is the
word that comes to mind, but it is really too small a word for a
genocide of the helpless by smug but powerful environmentalists.

While the multi-nationals rape these countries of their natural
resources, stealing their wealth, Mr. Jute stands by and says nothing?

*******

Let's look at that meretricious piece of crap from Tom Sherman again:
Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
has the business community,

I"ve just demonstrated that environmentalists from the beginning were
the greatest mass murderers the world has ever seen, and to this day,
and for the foreseeable future, remain genocidally dangerous to the
poor and the voiceless.

since most wars have been driven by business
interests.

Really? You should read a little history, Tom. The two largest and
most destructive wars in history were fought for the pride of two men,
Kaiser Wilhelm and Georges Clemenceau, who was already dead when the
war fought for his pride started.

World War One was fought because the German Kaiser wanted an empire as
glorious as that of his cousin Bertie, who was King of England. The
business interests in Germany were no fools: they knew that the
British Empire, though it glittered, cost more than it benefited the
nation (look it up -- modern studies have confirmed that the gut
instinct of the German mercantile classes was right: the British
Empire cost more to administer than it brought in). German business,
as represented by the Chancellor, was dead against the war, and you
may include Bertha von Krupp (or more precisely her hushand, who ran
her family's businesses) in that; they were very bitter that they were
not permitted to arm France fully before the Emperor forced the war.

Mr. Jute ignores the business forces that profited handsomely from that
war, and may well have had a great hand in starting it. Who's history
does one want to believe?

World War Two became inevitable when that idiot Wilson, President of
the United States, rubbed wrong Lloyd George, Prime Minister of
England and a compromiser from way back, the one man Wilson had to
have onside for his dream of a lasting peace to be realized, in
consequence, Llloyd George, against the advice of his advisors (who
included such diverse men as Maynard Keynes, Jan Smuts -- who would
later write the Declaration of Human Rights the UN still uses, and the
arms merchant Basil Zaharoff), sided with Clemenceau, the Tiger of
France, when he wanted a peace that avenged French humiliation in
1870. That unmagnanimous peace guaranteed the second world war as the
magnanimity of the British in not demanding a destructive peace after
WW2, and the huge generosity of the Americans in making that peace
prosperous and democratic via the Marshall Plan, guaranteed the peace
we live in, which is of a length and a prosperity quite unknown in
human history.

Peace and prosperity for only a fraction of the world's population.

Neither of these huge wars had anything to do with business interests;
in both cases the commercial interests were horrified at the wars.

Oh really? Despite the huge profits involved? Does Mr. Jute prefer the
sanitized version of history sanctioned by these same business interests?

*******
As for your remark the other day about many wars since WW2, so what?
They're little wars, police actions.

Yes, little wars that kill mostly poor, dark skinned people. Why should
USians and Europeans be concerned about such wars?

Dictators at home, some listed
above, have killed more people every year for no reason at all than
were killed in all those declared wars.

And many of those dictators have been supported by the US, whose foreign
policy has been run by corporate interests. Ask the Dulles brothers if
you do not believe this (rhetorical question).

Joe Stalin in the 1920s had
between 3-6 million orphaned children running wild in the countryside
machine-gunned; he thought they might be infected with venereal
disease. The world hardly noticed. But you want to whine about a few
companies providing services when Iraq is forcibly democratized.

"Iraq is forcibly democratized" - that is the type of comment I expect
from Ed Dolan, who is not to be taken seriously. Thanks for the laugh,
however.

I say
good for George Bush, and wonder why his dad didn't finish the job.
(Bill Clinton wanted to finish the job but was distracted by the
bother America's petty moralists blew up about Monica Lewinsky.) I
also say it is a damn good thing that the military is forced to
privatise services: without competition, the price of having the
military provide the same service would skyrocket.

The money in either case goes to the same companies that are politically
well connected. The greatest welfare expenditure in history.

I just don't see
your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government.

What democratic government? Right now Iraq has a dysfunctional
government that is trying to get the US military to eliminate its
internal enemies while taking orders from Tehran.

It's
leftie bull****, and you know it; if George Bush didn't go into Iran,
you'd now be whining that he was a coward who lets Saddam get away
with genocide.

Mr. Jute's putting these words into my mouth is as off base as any
accusation Mr. Fogel has made on these newsgroups, and on the same moral
level. To use a Brownism, the about comment by Mr. Jute is replete with
used food.

First off, Saddam Hussein killed those who he needed to so as to stay in
power, with the total numbers in Iraq not approaching genocide.
Secondly, the most people killed by his regime were Iranians and Iraqi
soldiers in a proxy war fought on behalf of the US under the direction
of "Saint Reagan".

*******

Try to look up from the saplings to the forest, Tom.


I have learned that evil is rooted in the lust for power. Mr. Jute seems
to have missed that lesson.

Andre Jute
Well-read

And with a self-serving agenda.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?

On Mar 30, 5:07 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
I just don't see
your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government.

No it was not alright for Saddam to murder people. But in your
righteous zeal to create better world you glide over some heard
reality. Saddam was not the only enemy in the region - Iran with
their nuclear ambition and somewhat insane leaders poses far greater
danger than Iraq. And the way to keep Iran in check was to keep
Saddam
in place - the minute Iran gets uppity we lift sanction and throw
supprt behind Saddam. And Iranians knew it and sit tight, After we
removed Saddam and gave power in IRAQ to Shi'ite coalition - which
very much pro-Iranian we blew the lid off - the is nothing we can do
to Iran except go after them ourselves. Which we cannot afford.
Now that - our dear bleeding heart conservative friend - is called
utter STUPIDITY. That os Political Science 101.

Regarding your remark "INSTALL democratic government" - that is an
oxymoron - don't you agree? You can install dictator but democratic
governments are elected (or not elected) by the will of majority of
thye people. And frankly I think that it is nearly impossible for
democracy to thrive in IRAQ. For that you need some influential
enough class/group (or several od them) in society to support it.
IN post war Iraq there were four organized groups ready to compete
for political power:
1. Iraqi military
2. Baath party
3. Shiite islamists
4. Sunni islamists
In April 2003 Paul Bremmer disbanded the military and banned Baath
party members from holding public offices. Thus effectively removing
two SECULAR and anti-Iranian groups we could USE to attempt
democtratic
reforms.
Instead we were left with islamists that do not give a **** about
democracy and we are doing idiotic balancing act between Sunnis and
Shiites ever since. With no end in sight.
That is what happens when idiots and amateurs try to "install
democracy".

MY personal opinion is that democracy in IRAQ is pie in the sky thing
-
we can keep trying for next 20 years and minute we withdraw two
things
will happen:
1. pro-Iranian Islamic republic
2. military dictatorship
We could have cut our losses tremendously if we immediately threw all
our
support behind Iraqi military - let them take control, provide
security,
fight any pro-Iranian element and maybe even install military leader.
And cut the deal with them them that in 10-15 they would move Iraq
toward
democracy. Benefits: no insurgency, our troops would have been home,
Iran
would have been contained, Iraq would have been STABLE.
But NO - bleeding heart righteous neocons decided to have their
little
democracy experiment. And our soldier and taxpayer are paying for
their
dogmatic idiocy.

Tim McNamara wrote:
Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?

I got bored of arguing with Ed Dolan.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Mar 31, 1:08*am, Tim McNamara wrote:
Andre's just a griefer. *Why are you wasting your time on him?

Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
one?

On Mar 31, 1:15*am, Woland99 wrote:
On Mar 30, 5:07 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I just don't see
your implied case that it is *all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government.

No it was not alright for Saddam to murder people. But in your
righteous zeal to create better world you glide over some heard
reality. Saddam was not the only enemy in the region - Iran with
their nuclear ambition and somewhat insane leaders poses far greater
danger than Iraq. And the way to keep Iran in check was to keep
Saddam
in place - the minute Iran gets uppity we lift sanction and throw
supprt behind Saddam. And Iranians knew it and sit tight, After we
removed Saddam and gave power in IRAQ to Shi'ite coalition - which
very much pro-Iranian we blew the lid off - the is nothing we can do
to Iran except go after them ourselves. Which we cannot afford.
Now that - our dear bleeding heart conservative friend - is called
utter STUPIDITY. That os Political Science 101.

Regarding your remark "INSTALL democratic government" - that is an
oxymoron - don't you agree? You can install dictator but democratic
governments are elected (or not elected) by the will of majority of
thye people. And frankly I think that it is nearly impossible for
democracy to thrive in IRAQ. For that you need some influential
enough class/group (or several od them) in society to support it.
IN post war Iraq there were four organized groups ready to compete
for political power:
1. Iraqi military
2. Baath party
3. Shiite islamists
4. Sunni islamists
In April 2003 Paul Bremmer disbanded the military and banned Baath
party members from holding public offices. Thus effectively removing
two SECULAR and anti-Iranian groups we could USE to attempt
democtratic
reforms.
Instead we were left with islamists that do not give a **** about
democracy and we are doing idiotic balancing act between Sunnis and
Shiites ever since. With no end in sight.
That is what happens when idiots and amateurs try to "install
democracy".

MY personal opinion is that democracy in IRAQ is pie in the sky thing
-
we can keep trying for next 20 years and minute we withdraw two
things
will happen:
1. pro-Iranian Islamic republic
2. military dictatorship
We could have cut our losses tremendously if we immediately threw all
our
support behind Iraqi military - let them take control, provide
security,
fight any pro-Iranian element and maybe even install military leader.
And cut the deal with them them that in 10-15 they would move Iraq
toward
democracy. Benefits: no insurgency, our troops would have been home,
Iran
would have been contained, Iraq would have been STABLE.
But NO - bleeding heart righteous neocons decided to have their
little
democracy experiment. And our soldier and taxpayer are paying for
their
dogmatic idiocy.

Wow! Now that's realpolitik for you. In Woe's worldview, conservatives
are bleeding hearts... I'm not going to say anything more for fear of
offending a truly hard man.

Andre Jute
Realist

On Mar 30, 8:27 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:08 am, Tim McNamara wrote:

Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?

Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
one?

Lil' Timmy Mac is a psychologist (hard to believe, but it's
true!)......he thinks he should be able to tell people how and what to
think.

Andre Jute wrote:
environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.

A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.

A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.

Well yeah, sure, you make a compelling case!

Except for one thing. It hasn't been banned in tropical countries where
mosquito-borne illnesses are a major problem.

Oh darn, one other pesky thing about your logic. You only mention cancer as
the reason for banning most use of DDT. Nice try. Much of the environmental
movement is about reducing threats to biodiversity, and DDT proved to be a
very significant threat to wildlife (thinning egg shells and severe toxicity
to many fish and other acquatic species when DDT runoff from fields entered
streams and lakes). There may come a time when a lack of biodiversity
results in a genocide far greater than theone that you imagine to be
presently happening.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:27 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:08 am, Tim McNamara wrote:

Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
one?

Lil' Timmy Mac is a psychologist (hard to believe, but it's
true!)......he thinks he should be able to tell people how and what to
think.

Zarkie is back! Been visiting JFT in New York?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful