Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Environmental Genocide
08-03-2008, 12:18 AM,
Environmental Genocide
[Image: malaria_special.jpg]

Environmental Genocide
By: William F. Jasper
July 2, 2001

A brutal mass murderer is stalking the planet. Each year he kills millions and leaves millions more injured. Incredibly, while expressing concern over his carnage, the United Nations — with the help of the U.S. government — has given him a free pass to keep up his deadly rampage.

The killer’s name is malaria, and the United Nations Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (known as the POP Convention) will give this murderous plague permanent protected status. The UN POP Convention, signed by representatives of more than 100 nations in Stockholm on May 23rd, is heralded by the radical eco-lobby and the media as a tremendous boon for humankind and the planet. Yet, the POP treaty is, in truth, a global death warrant for millions — and, potentially, hundreds of millions — of human beings.

"Malaria, which had been eliminated or effectively suppressed in many parts of the world, is undergoing a resurgence," warned the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in 1996. "It is a public health problem today in more than 90 countries inhabited by some 2,400 million people — 40 percent of the world’s population. Malaria is estimated to cause up to 500 million clinical cases and 2.7 million deaths each year. Every 30 seconds, a child somewhere dies of malaria. The global effects of the disease threaten public health and productivity on a broad scale and impede the progress of many countries toward democracy and prosperity."

"The human dimensions of malaria are staggering. It is, by far, the most devastating and deadly parasitic disease in the world," notes the Malaria Foundation International (MFI), one of the world’s leading anti-malaria organizations. Or as Dr. Wenceslaus Kilama, chairman of MFI, has stated, the current malaria epidemic "is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro."
Unnecessary Deaths

The most staggering aspect of malaria’s horrendous death toll, however, is the fact that most of these deaths are unnecessary. Millions of lives could be saved and the suffering of hundreds of millions prevented for relatively small cost — and with "old" technology. That technology is DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane), a pesticide that has proven to be a veritable godsend to mankind, even as it has been subjected to a campaign of vilification over the past four decades.

Dr. Roger Bate, a director of Africa Fighting Malaria, a South African non-governmental organization, reminds us that the heroic malaria-eradication program following World War II used DDT as its primary weapon. "This program succeeded in North America and southern Europe, and greatly reduced incidence in many other countries," says Dr. Bate. "Spraying DDT in houses and on mosquito breeding grounds was the primary reason that rates of malaria around the world declined dramatically after the Second World War," Dr. Bate notes in his study, When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Nearly one million Indians died from malaria in 1945, but DDT spraying reduced this to a few thousand by 1960. However, concerns about the environmental harm of DDT led to a decline in spraying, and likewise, a resurgence of malaria. Today there are once again millions of cases of malaria in India, and over 300 million cases worldwide — most in sub-Saharan Africa. Cases of malaria in South Africa have risen by over 1000 percent in the past five years. Only those countries that have continued to use DDT, such as Ecuador, have contained or reduced malaria."

The MFI reports that due to Sri Lanka’s use of DDT in a mosquito abatement program, "in only 8 years, Sri Lanka went from a million cases of malaria a year to only seventeen." When the DDT spraying was stopped, however, "malaria rebounded to nearly a million cases a year" within a decade.

Dr. Bate records similar results in Africa:

Not long after DDT was removed from malaria control in South Africa in 1996, disease rates rocketed, particularly in northern KwaZulu Natal. A serious problem was that Anopheles funestus mosquitoes developed resistance to synthetic pyrethroids — the main alternative to DDT — making the switch an expensive and futile exercise. According to Rajendra Maharaj, head of vector control at the South African department of health, it is unlikely that [Anopheles] funestus would ever have returned had DDT remained in use.

One need only compare malaria rates in South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique to see the effect of banning DDT. Swaziland never halted DDT spraying and infection rates range between 2 and 4 per cent. A short distance over the border in South Africa, infection rates average about 40 per cent. In Mozambique, infection rates are over 80 per cent, owing in part to the collapse of the malaria control program during that country’s war.... DDT is now back in use in KwaZulu Natal and according to Jotham Mthembu, head of the malaria control program at Jozini in KZN, conditions have improved.

DDT was developed by Dr. Paul Müller, a Swiss chemist who received the Nobel Price in Medicine in 1948, in recognition of the enormous medical importance of this remarkable chemical substance. Though widely used for only three decades, DDT has been justifiably credited with preventing more human deaths by disease than any chemical ever concocted.

Yet, the government of the United States has joined forces with environmental organizations and the United Nations to deny this important life-saving tool to those who most desperately need it. The UN POP Convention has targeted 12 chemicals that it has dubbed "The Dirty Dozen" for elimination or severe restriction. While not scheduled for outright elimination (at least not yet), the POP restrictions on DDT will render it too costly and inaccessible to those countries in most serious need.
Backing From Bush

If a Clinton or Gore administration had announced its intent to sign the POP Convention, one could be sure of an avalanche of furious denunciations from the loyal opposition. GOP congressmen and conservative commentators would have scorched the Oval Office for "green extremism" and environmental genocide. Al Gore’s embarrassingly ridiculous 1992 ecological manifesto, Earth in the Balance, would have been dredged up once more for rhetorical target practice.

Nevertheless, while the presidential remarks emanating from the White House Rose Garden on April 19th sounded like a rip-and-read from Gore’s infamous book, the words were coming out of the mouth of George W. Bush. Flanked by Secretary of State Colin Powell and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, to underscore the importance of his announcement, President Bush proclaimed: "Negotiations were begun by the previous administration, and this treaty achieves a goal shared by this administration. I am pleased to announce my support for the [POP] treaty and the intention of our government to sign and submit it for approval by the United States Senate."

Adopting the vernacular of the radical environmentalists at Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund, President Bush declared that "this international agreement would restrict the use of 12 dangerous chemicals — POPs, as they are known, or the Dirty Dozen."

The Republican president went on to proclaim that "concerns over the hazards of PCBs, DDT, and the other toxic chemicals covered by the agreement are based on solid scientific information. These pollutants are linked to developmental defects, cancer, and other grave problems in humans and animals. The risks are great, and the need for action is clear. We must work to eliminate, or at least to severely restrict the release of these toxins without delay."

Citing the POP treaty as a wondrous "bipartisan" victory, Bush announced that "now a Republican administration will continue and complete the work of a Democratic administration. This is the way environmental policy should work."

Unfortunately, this is the way environmental policy does work amongst our bipartisan globalists in Washington. This seeming Republican reversal on the POP treaty should not have surprised anyone. As James M. Lindsay of the Brookings Institution pointed out last fall during the closing weeks of the Bush-Gore election race, "both Al Gore and George W. Bush are internationalists by inclination...." Mr. Lindsay made that significant observation in the September/October 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, which Time magazine has called "the most influential periodical in print." This influence derives from the fact that Foreign Affairs is the flagship journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the central brain trust of the organized one-world internationalists.

In the globalspeak well understood by Foreign Affairs readers, Lindsay was assuring Council members that, rhetoric notwithstanding, George W. could be counted on reliably to continue the same one-world agenda of empowering the United Nations that they would expect of Al Gore. For those internationalists who had any doubts, all concerns surely melted away when they saw the Bush administration take form; dozens of Cabinet members and top-level appointees were drawn from the usual CFR stable.

The POP Convention also bears the CFR’s fingerprints. Contrary to popular lore, this UN treaty was not conceived, developed, and nurtured to fruition by the UN; that world body’s pampered diplomats and bureaucrats merely served as midwives in the final delivery. The real progenitors of the deadly POP scheme include a sizable contingent of the CFR intelligentsia operating, over the last four decades, in a coordinated fashion, in such power centers as the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, Brookings, the Carnegie Endowment, the Trilateral Commission, the World Resources Institute, the Worldwatch Institute, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the Gorbachev Foundation, the Club of Rome, etc.

The main attack on DDT was launched by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) with massive promotion courtesy of the CFR media cartel and funding from the CFR-dominated tax-exempt foundations. The Sierra Club boasts on its website that the POP treaty triumphed "thanks to the Sierra Club and over 300 other environmental and social justice organizations from around the world working in coordination under the umbrella International POPS Elimination Network (IPEN)." Like the EDF and Sierra Club, virtually all of these groups are beholden to the same media and foundation Insiders for funding and promotion.

The same Sierra Club web page notes that the POP treaty grew out of several earlier agreements spawned at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, particularly the UN’s eco-manifesto for total regimentation of the entire planet, known as Agenda 21. The secretary-general of the Earth Summit was Maurice Strong, who said, prior to that event, that the global agenda in Rio would be guided by a report of the Trilateral Commission entitled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. "I have been privileged to work closely with the principal author, Jim MacNeill, for over two decades," Strong wrote in the introduction to that report, noting that MacNeill "is now advising me on the road to Rio" concerning "decisions that will literally determine the fate of the earth." Writing the foreword to that same study was none other than David Rockefeller, longtime chairman and guiding light of both the CFR and Trilateral Commission.

Thus, the sudden embrace of the POP treaty by the CFR-laden Bush administration should not have surprised any readers of THE NEW AMERICAN. As William Norman Grigg noted in a joint profile of George W. Bush and Al Gore prior to last November’s election outcome (see "Tweedledee or Tweedledum?" in our December 4, 2000 issue), in the controlled Republican-Democrat dialectical scheme, "the general division of labor is this: Democrats initiate, Republicans consolidate." The POP flip-flop is but one of many actions that have vindicated Mr. Grigg’s analysis. In the environmental field alone, Bush has ratified radical and destructive Clinton programs on wetlands, timber, roadless areas, and water use. All of which point darkly to an eventual Bush reversal on "global warming" and an embrace of the UN’s dangerous Kyoto Protocol.
The Drive for Depopulation

Given the life-and-death stakes involved in the DDT-malaria conflict, questions naturally arise: Don’t the POP champions realize the deadly consequences of their actions? Don’t they know that millions of people will die as a result of enforcement of the POP restrictions? Obviously, many of the pedestrian-level "environmentalists" do not; many of these well-meaning do-gooders would be shocked if the real nature and effects of this treaty were explained to them. However, the CFR Insiders who spawn and promote these global enviro-schemes know full well the lethal measure of their proposals. These organized globalists have been fully apprised by eminent scientists and learned societies of the terrible cost in lives, suffering, and dollars that will result from their policies, and they have proceeded apace nonetheless. They know that President Bush’s claim that the POP agreement is "based on solid scientific information" is ludicrous; they know it is based on junk science and deadly deception. (See the accompanying sidebar, "Deadly Junk Science,")

What’s more, we can logically surmise that many of these one-world elitists are culpable of actually intending the terrible outcome that enforcement of the POP treaty will surely bring: the condemnation of fellow human beings to death by depriving them of the readily available means of protecting themselves. We can make this surmise because they have told us so in their own self-indicting speeches and writings.

During the debates over DDT in the late 1960s, Dr. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the radical Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), responded to a reporter’s question about DDT’s life-saving potential by saying there are too many people on the planet already. Banning DDT, he said, "is as good a way to get rid of them as any." "Them" refers to all of the millions of hapless victims — primarily in developing countries — whom people like Wurster view as excess baggage. "Them" includes "all those little brown people in poor countries," as fellow depopulationist Dr. Van den Bosch of the University of California so indelicately phrased it.

But it’s not only Third World "brown people" who are targeted for elimination. During a 1971 House Committee on Agriculture hearing on DDT, Representative John Rarick revealed this quote by Dr. Wurster, whose EDF has been lavishly funded for decades by the CFR-dominated tax exempt foundations: "It really doesn’t make a lot of difference because the organophosphate [pesticide] acts locally and only kills farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes."

If you do not fit that racial profile, don’t imagine that you have been neglected by the one-world eugenicists. Friends of the Earth founder David Brower, another radical environmentalist long favored by the CFR Establishment, has targeted you too. In his Earth Day — The Beginning, a "survival guide" published in 1970, Brower declared: "That’s the first thing to do — start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto." Brower also proclaimed: "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:

The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer....

This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.

Later, just before the Earth Summit, Cousteau told Jean Daniel, senior editor of the French weekly Nouvelle Observateur: "More and more people are willing to use the atomic bomb if the situation arises that one billion people are migrating toward the West." Cousteau didn’t explicitly say that he would be willing to use the bomb, but the inference was that such drastic measures may be not only justified, but possibly essential, to attain "sustainable" world population levels.

Unfortunately, the extremist views of Brower, Wurster, Cousteau, and company are completely at one with the internationalist elite who fund them and populate the upper echelons of the CFR network of power. Consider Maurice Strong, for instance, billionaire honcho at the World Economic Forum and the Club of Rome and secretary-general of the UN Earth Summit. It was Strong who welcomed Cousteau, Gorbachev, and Castro to Rio and elevated them to demigod status in the UN’s green pantheon. At the Earth Summit, Strong deplored the world’s "explosive increase in population," and warned, "We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control." He thundered: "Population must be stabilized, and rapidly."

Just prior to the UN Earth Summit, the Club of Rome, in which Strong has been a prime mover, had issued its startling report, The First Global Revolution. That report declared: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention.... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

This was the same theme espoused by Cornell University Professor David Pimentel in his 1994 address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which he posited that the number of human beings on our planet is nearly triple what it should be. According to Pimentel’s calculations, world population should be reduced to somewhere between one billion to two billion people.

Philosopher/author Sam Keen has gone even further. Addressing Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1995 State of the World Forum (a top nongovernmental organization at the UN), Keen decried the "population explosion" and said: "We must speak far more clearly about sexuality, about contraception, about abortion, about the values that control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the [world’s] population by 90 percent and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

Not to be outdone, Ted Turner, the CNN-Time-Warner mogul, would like to get rid of an even larger chunk of humanity "Right now, there are just way too many people on the planet," Turner said, in an Audubon magazine interview. What did this great humanitarian think might be the optimal population level for the entire planet? Not more than "250 million to 350 million people," said Ted.

The POP Convention is merely an opening round in the UN’s war against that great "enemy," humanity. Even malaria will not be sufficiently lethal to satisfy the depopulation goals of the globalists. More murderous measures will surely follow, unless we act first to "Get US out! — of the United Nations."

Deadly Junk Science

‘‘DDT is such a potent chemical that as long as it is used anywhere in the world, nobody is safe,” said Clifton Curtis, director of the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Global Toxics Initiative, in a January 29, 1999 press release announcing the WWF’s call for a worldwide DDT ban.

Gilbert L. Ross, M.D., of the American Council on Science and Health says that the WWF assault on DDT is “typical of the dangerous environmental disinformation and superstition masquerading as science that has been stirring hysteria ever since the 1960s, with the launching of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.” Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, describes Silent Spring as “a book filled with deliberate falsehoods … and unjustified fear.” Dr. Robinson points out that among the book’s many deceptions was a dedication to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, and an out-of-context quote from Schweitzer, intended to deceitfully exploit his worldwide fame in the service of the anti-DDT jihad. But, as Dr. Robinson notes, Schweitzer actually said regarding malaria: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us … but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.”

“The banning of DDT in the Western world was completely unjustified from any rational scientific, medical, or environmental perspective,” Dr. Ross told THE NEW AMERICAN. “It has been one of the most important chemicals ever developed for human benefit. Extensive scientific studies have not been able to show any harm to the environment, and there is not evidence of harm to humans, even with the massive overuse of DDT in agriculture,” in the 1950s and 60s. “By comparison, only minuscule amounts of DDT are used to spray residences in malaria control programs. It is still the safest, cheapest, most effective protection” against malaria, he notes.

Dr. Donald R. Roberts, professor of tropical public health at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, agrees, calling DDT “the best insecticide we have for controlling malaria.” Even the UN’s own World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Malaria acknowledges this. In their 20th and most recent report, the WHO experts conclude: “The information presented does not provide convincing evidence of adverse effects of DDT exposure as a result of indoor residual spraying as carried out in malaria control activities.”

In a 1999 interview, Dr. Roberts told the New York Times, “We have got to stop pressuring countries to ban DDT. It is immoral.” Indeed, it goes beyond immoral. Abominable, criminal, and genocidal are more accurate.


08-03-2008, 12:44 AM,
Environmental Genocide

Actually drug resistance is a HUGE problem -- and not just for DDT -- so nice try. The problem is WORSE than some "cultural" stereotype -- the genocide started with Plato and has been escalating ever since.
08-03-2008, 01:34 AM,
Environmental Genocide
[Image: 600px-Libertarian_National_Socialist_Gre...go.svg.png]

Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide

By John Jalsevac

The Worst Crime of the 20th Century

“Which kills more: ideology or religion?”1 asks author Andrew Kenney in the title of what is certainly one of the more startling pieces I’ve read in some time.

For Kenney, however, it’s not the meat of that question that’s really up for debate, and it’s not his answer to the meat of it that’s startling; after all, a summary finger count shows that the man who favors the religious wars has his work cut out to match the math of the fascist and communist regimes that have dropped the metaphorical guillotine since the French Revolution.

What makes Kenney’s article startling is not that the self-professed atheist necessarily concludes that the reds (communists) and the browns (fascists) have contributed much more heartily to history’s flow of blood than any religion, but that, of the three available ideological colors, it is the extremists of the green standard whose hands are perhaps guiltiest for the last century’s outpouring of crimson.

According to Kenney over 50,000,000 people died in the 20th century because of the gratuitous recklessness of eco-extremists; this estimate is actually quite conservative in comparison to’s claim that over 80,000,000 have dropped at the hands of the tree-huggers.

“In purely numerical terms,” says Kenney about the alleged murderous scheme, “it was the worst crime of the 20th century.”

But what was the worst crime?

“The banning of DDT,” says Kenney.

Of course this could be comfortably put to rest as the ranting of just another, competing ideological nut were it not that Kenney is in very, very good company.

A New York Times article of January of this year, titled It’s Time to Spray DDT proclaimed what long ago became the obvious, that “the evidence is overwhelming: DDT saves lives.”2 The American Council on Science and Health printed an article in 2002 entitled The DDT ban turns 30 – millions dead of malaria because of ban, more deaths likely.3 In 2003 Front Page Magazine ran an article entitled Rachel Carsons’ Ecological Genocide, similarly concerned with the DDT ban, and employing that loaded word “genocide”.4 And in his popular novel, State of Fear, Michael Crichton also espoused this view, describing the DDT ban as “arguably the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.” He continues, “since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler.”5

The Tragic History Of DDT and Silent Spring

The history of DDT is a tragic one. The chemical, the proper name of which is dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, was first isolated in the late 19th century. No practical use was found for it, however, until Paul Herman Muller determined in 1939 that it made for an effective insecticide.

Used extensively during WWII and afterwards, the remarkably cheap and easy-to-process pesticide is widely credited with the complete eradication of the scourge of malaria from the Western world. The white powder, once dusted on the walls of a house or on the human body, works by killing malaria and typhus carrying vectors such as mosquitoes or lice.

According to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia DDT performed the feat of reducing the worldwide malaria mortality rate from a hefty 192 per 100,000 to a low of 7 per 100,000. Paul Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1948 for his lifesaving work with DDT.

With Muller’s miracle-pesticide in widespread use the movement towards a malaria-free earth was progressing swimmingly until Rachel Carson erupted hysterically onto the international scene. She alleged in her deeply influential 1962 book Silent Spring that DDT caused cancer and was aiding the rapid extinction of raptors such as bald eagles by thinning their egg shells. Environmentalists everywhere took up the cause and soon achieved the first great and unifying victory of the modern environmental movement—the worldwide banning of DDT.

And that would be perfectly all right, perhaps, if any of Carson’s allegations were true.

Rachel Carson’s Allegations Disproved

But in 2004 a study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons concludes “Public pressure [to ban DDT] was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly exaggerated. The worldwide affect of the U.S. ban has been millions of preventable deaths .”6 In fact, it is difficult to choose which of the countless studies that have vindicated DDT over the years I should cite.

One study saw volunteers consume 35mg of raw DDT daily for a period of two years with no short or long-term ill effects .7 One anti-DDT-ban scientist began his every lecture on the subject by ingesting a teaspoon of DDT powder.8 Of the workers who applied thousands of tons of DDT without any protection, none have shown an increased risk of cancer or any other illness. Even the alleged thinning of the eggshells of raptors that environmentalists now tout as a last and desperate reason for continuing the archaic ban has been proven false.

The DDT Ban Put In Perspective

Allow me to provide some perspective. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), DDT is classified as Group 2B carcinogenicity; that is, there is an admitted insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity.9 On the other hand, a report issued but a few weeks ago by the IARC classified combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives, the most widely prescribed contraceptive on the market, as Group 1 carcinogenicity.10

The oral contraceptives, which the WHO claims over 100 million women worldwide regularly ingest, are by this classification defined as definitely carcinogenic. And yet, DDT, by now proven innocent as a babe after decades of scrutiny, the harmless miracle-chemical the purpose of which is to prevent the excruciating death of millions, is strictly regulated with a worldwide ban, while the proven carcinogenic, cancer-causing contraceptive, used to prevent the creation of human life, is handed out like candy.

But here’s the real kicker. According to the WHO there is some evidence that besides causing substantially increased risks of breast, liver, and cervical cancer, combined oral contraceptives may cause a decrease in the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. The WHO therefore justifies downplaying the immediate risk to hundreds of millions of women worldwide because “it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial.”

Curiously, however, the WHO’s analysis of DDT grants the pesticide no such benevolent handicap. DDT has saved millions of lives, and the ban, based upon long disproved claims of carcinogenicity, is perpetuating the annual death of millions. Talk about a beneficial “overall net public health outcome”! But of course, maybe after another forty years of testing and research it will be found that DDT powder once caused someone to sneeze to death.

Adding insult to injury, over the past five years numerous powerful international bodies have sought to make the DDT ban even stricter.

Currently it is possible for tropical nations most ravaged by malaria to apply for exceptions to the DDT ban, which exceptions undergo review every three years by the WHO. This provision is of little use to most third world nations, since there is a global stigma attached to DDT, and many charitable bodies will not fund relief efforts unless it is agreed that DDT will not be used. Besides that, the cost of DDT has increased substantially. But in 2000, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convention in Johannesburg flaunted science and common sense and sought to choke that final loophole of grace and make the DDT ban total; ultimately they failed in their bid, due to the ardent pleas of malaria experts and the third world countries most affected by malaria. In addition the Stockholm Convention, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have all clamoured since the year 2000 for the total banning of DDT.

Why Does the DDT Ban Continue?

But if it is so patently illogical and scientifically apocryphal, why is it that the ban continues unabated?

The answer to that riddle is likely beyond even the powers of Oedipus to discover in full, and is certainly beyond the limited scope of this article. It probably has a lot to do with what Charles Wurter, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund said in October 1969: “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.”11 It seems more than safe at this point to call that statement prophetic. For the green extremists to admit defeat now would be to renege in large part the authority won by the victory they achieved in the DDT war.

Perhaps this malaria holocaust is, in large part, allowed to continue because the millions who needlessly die by the disease do so outside of the scope of the roving eye of the West. DDT long ago made malaria a tropical and not a Western phenomenon, and thus the millions of third world malarial deaths have no visible faces to excite Western sympathies or funding.

However, more fundamental than that, it appears, is the singular and sinister nature of modern environmentalism as an ideology. Professing a creed that is eminently respectful of life of such, it often happens that adherents of the green ideology come out with things that don’t jive. The scientist mentioned earlier, J. Gordon Edwards, who regularly consumed raw DDT powder before speaking about it, once called Rachel Carson’s philosophy a “lack of concern for human lives.” He continued, “She could vividly describe the death of a bird…but nowhere in the book does she even think to describe the death of a human by an insect-borne disease.” 12

And Carson, as one of the mothers of environmentalism, has left that sordid legacy behind her.

Earth First! Founder Dave Foreman’s beliefs typify that legacy. “Ours is an ecological perspective,” he said in his book Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, launching into a description worthy of Wordsworth, “that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g. malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere.”13 Unless, I presume, Mr. David Foreman happened to be the one convulsing to death.

The environmentalist movement long ago distanced itself from whatever token respect it once professed for human life and has come out instead in cooing support of panda life. This would be cute were it not murderous.

Apparently, however, some eco-extremists are coming to recognize the deficiencies of their own ideology. Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in their controversial essay The Death of Environmentalism allege that “Environmental groups have spent the last 40 years defining themselves against conservative values like cost-benefit accounting, smaller government, fewer regulations, and free trade, without ever articulating a coherent morality we can call our own. Most of the intellectuals who staff environmental groups are so repelled by the right's values that we have assiduously avoided examining our own in a serious way.” 14

If we are to believe these remarks of Shellenberger and Nordhaus (and I certainly do), then environmentalists have initiated and stubbornly sustained a genocidal ban on DDT, because they are “repelled” by the morality of the “right”. And like rebellious teens they would rather react and continue to react against an established order than to consider the destruction they are leaving in their wake.

DDT and Population Control

But that is certainly not yet the end of the story. One of the most revealing quotations related to the issue at hand is another by Charles Wurster, who was reported to have said in 1971, after it was pointed out to him by a reporter that the widespread usage of the pesticide DDT saved lives: “So what? People are the main cause of our problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them…”

Some members of the left have alleged that this quote by Wurster is false, fabricated by a disgruntled former employee of Wurster’s. And that may be so though it has hardly been proven; but either way, that statement remains in essence the clearest, bluntest expression of a theory and an attitude that has flourished ever since Thomas Malthus published his infamous work “An Essay on the Principle of Population”; individuals as diverse as Nietzsche, Hitler and Margaret Sanger have all expressed it in one form or another.

Francis Galton, the influential British eugenicist, elucidated these ideas in a more ‘academic’ fashion in his book Memories of My Life, saying:

[Eugenics] first object is to check the birth rate of the Unfit, instead of allowing them to come into being, though doomed in large numbers to perish prematurely. The second object is the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the Fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children. Natural Selection rests upon excessive production and wholesale destruction; eugenics on bringing no more individuals into the world than can be properly cared for; and those only of the best stock. 15

It is no coincidence that population control and environmentalism have always been inextricably entwined in the grand scheme of liberal ideology. Both are founded upon an pernicious belief that man is little more than a pollutant, a scum to be prevented from interfering any more than necessary with the purity of the natural biosphere. As such it is especially difficult to believe that the fact that malaria is yet another of the scourges unleashed upon the poor and sick of the third world that goes unchecked by the Western world is merely a coincidence.

The DDT ban, ostensibly supported by false and archaic claims of carcinogenicity, makes no sense unless the goals of environmentalist/over-population activists are taken into account. As one environmentalist commentator put it: “What I said is that the mosquitos [sic] and malaria in question acted as a natural population control. After the introduction of DDT into some areas of Africa, the population increased so much that people began starving. Population control sounds a lot better to me than starvation and the environmental destruction caused by overpopulation.”16 claims that “In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, ‘Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing’.”

In short, it is much easier for the West to kill off the poor, or allow them to die at the hand of “natural” diseases, than to determine how to feed them. And that is quite true, for the mouth of a corpse doesn’t cry out to be fed. But is it right? No; a thousand times no.

The “green eco-imperialist legacy of death” mentioned above’s infamous malaria clock,17 which calculates over 89,000,000 malaria-ravished corpses since DDT was banned, is exactly right. But now it is time for that genocidal legacy to come to an end; it is time that environmentalists threw off their adolescent petulance, admitted their grievous wrong, learned to respect the lives of all no matter their race, creed or economic status, and again permitted Third World countries what they deserve—easy access to the desperately needed, life-saving malaria-fighting pesticide DDT.
08-03-2008, 02:00 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-03-2008, 02:02 AM by ---.)
Environmental Genocide
Excellent thread PF. cheers

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Chevron Granted Access to Environmental Activists' Email Accounts mexika 0 507 07-24-2013, 09:24 PM
Last Post: mexika
  The Great American Genocide, Part II mexika 0 290 07-24-2013, 10:33 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity mexika 0 302 07-23-2013, 07:55 AM
Last Post: mexika
  The Great Silent Genocide mexika 0 314 07-04-2013, 11:49 PM
Last Post: mexika
  BP - Environmental Genocide and U.S Energy Corp. mexika 0 437 01-27-2013, 07:08 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Ecuadorian Court Orders Chevron to Pay $19 Billion for Environmental Damages mexika 1 591 08-04-2012, 02:17 AM
Last Post: yeti
  Decision Documents – Determination of Environmental and Livestock Feed Safety icosaface 1 634 07-10-2012, 04:19 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Canadian Budget (C-9) to Gut Environmental Oversight, More Privatization and EI Theft FastTadpole 0 789 06-05-2010, 11:15 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  American Indian Genocide Continues hilly7 1 570 07-06-2009, 05:40 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Er Costs And Environmental Problems jack 0 485 09-02-2006, 05:24 AM
Last Post: jack

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)