Hurting the Poor, Abused, and Disenfranchised

Journalist Ann McElhinney, a former self-professed liberal environmentalist, discovered that people working for groups like Greenpeace are hurting the poor, abused, and disenfranchised the world over. 

Sadly, these radicals have a lot of power and are mercilessly welding it. I've written about this in other posts, most recently in "Population Controllers Meet Gaia Worshipers."

Using her knowledge for good, McElhinney has produced two documentaries, Mine Your Own Business and Not Evil Just Wrong, to combat radical environmentalism. She says these documentaries should be shown to students across the nation to help give them some balanced perspective on the issue. 

At it's heart, the radical environmental movement is a religious movement, but their goddess doesn't care about people or animals. Research and development of medicines have great benefits for extending the lives of animals, and we have a greater variety of plants, too.

McElhinney reminds people, "Instead their objections are based on a fundamentally anti-development ideology: nature is good; interfering with nature is bad; and the human instinct to improve on nature is hubris. Their love affair with all things natural and organic -- the so-called 'simple life' -- is wholly superstitious and irrational."

Have humans made some errors along the way? Yes, but thankfully most people have learned from them. 

Facts are vital, but McElhinney also says that we need to tell stories showing the reality of this deadly environmental religion. (I encourage you to listen to McElhinney, she's a hoot.)

You might consider buying the DVDs to show in your neighborhood schools and libraries, or consider hosting events around your community. Before you host something, find material to augment these videos at, Cornwall Alliance, and Acton Institute. 

There are other people and organizations who have done a lot of responsible work in the area of proper stewardship of the earth.  Let us know about them, and the real stories of people who are suffering from bad policies.  


oops, Roger Bates actually made that statement in a book. I got posted the wrong link.

Read this one.

I'll look for more later.
Kim, both I and the ever-chivalrous Jason live in Oregon, which has been the epicenter for radical environmental actions for decades. They've chained themselves to trees, and driven spikes into the trees to produce deadly shrapnel for a chainsaw. My brother-in-law works in the logging industry, trying to feed his family. It's no wonder much of our lumber is imported from countries where they shoot protesters. Not far from my home is the Oregon Primate Center, which performs experiments on animals for the sake of children (including, if I recall, some patients at the Doernbecher Pediatric Hospital, also not far from my home). OPC routinely gets protesters outside its driveway, harassing workers, and I believe they've been vandalized.

But more interesting to me is your remark about the abuse of power. I'm struck that this is exactly what's happening at OWS, and with Big Labor's intimidations during elections. They use the small power of mobs and the medium-sized power of the media to overcome the medium-sized power of social convention and the large power of police and (with some administrations) the government. And they could care less who's affected by their actions, or by the policies they set in place.

I think I'll go impulse-buy e-books of Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm".

Chuck Colson has been warning us for years that power, when disconnected from a self-sacrificial moral base, tends to abuse instead of serving (except being self-serving, "some are more equal than others"). Unfortunately, his argument is supported by a wealth of real, living (except for some children stricken with cancer) examples.
Hey Kim, thanks.

I didn't really get population control as the heart of that article though (granted, I read it quickly). It seemed more about corporate greed and ineptitude.

I thought it was going to go along those lines with the section: "When Malign Interests Align, the Poor Suffer"...

But the best paragraph from there was:
"DDT will not eradicate malaria, even though it did help eliminate it from two dozen countries in the last century. It is simply part of the antimalaria arsenal. DDT is not the best intervention in all circumstances, and as nations become wealthier its use will naturally diminish as they will be able to afford some of the alternative insecticides. Additionally, as the quality of housing improves, DDT may not be the most appropriate chemical as it is best used on wattle and daub structures as opposed to Western-style houses. But arbitrarily setting a date by which its use should cease could lead to the deaths of thousands of children every month."

So, it *sounds* like there's potential for some major disasters if unwisely approached, but it didn't sound like anyone was saying something like "We hope to reduce human populations by reducing DDT usage".

Can you guide me to a better understanding, perhaps?
Howdy Steve and Robert!

Like Marcellus says in Hamlet, it'd be appropriate to reply, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." (Wm. Shakespeare)

You might be interested in reading this report by Roger Bates. It looks like Social Darwinism (population control) is at the heart of the DDT ban.
Unchivalrous title. It implies that environmentalists actually want to hurt the poor, abused, and disenfranchised rather then that what they intend will in fact unintentionally do so. That is the sort of thing radicals throw at non-radicals and while fighting with fire causes momentary pleasantness, fighting with reason is far more honorable and dignified.
I'd like to learn more
I definitely get mixed messages from all sides.

For instance, I thought DDT was harmful to animal reproduction (such as prey-bird eggshell strength). It sounds like McElhinney thinks there's really nothing wrong with DDT.

I believe human life is more valuable than any other "cause", but there seems to be very little room for either dialogue or nuance.
Sometimes things that work against pests aren't the best strategies. Sometimes it is better to be less materially rich if it means greater joy.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean we don't fight pests or that people don't need jobs or shouldn't contribute to a free market.

I just hope we can work for human and all good flourishing with integrity, and love. Thanks for the topic discussion.
Hurting the Poor, Abused, and Disenfranchised
Excellent article! I think this is right on the money. I believe that Christian Doctrine is true environmentalism. Yes, mistakes have been made, but as Christians we are to manage God's Kingdom on Earth. Look forward to seeing the DVD's. God bless!

BreakPoint Blog