'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT' IS MENTAL ILLNESS
by Darren Weeks
April 11, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Someone once said that the only difference between genius and stupidity is that the former has limitations.
Recently, I read an account of some academic meatheads at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. Buying into the false notion that we can and need to do something about climate change, they studied the issue and eventually came to the conclusion that the “problem” was much easier to solve than previously thought. They determined that all that needed to happen to save the planet from wide-spread devastation and complete extinction is for everyone to simply quit breathing.
The Register reported thusly on their “findings” last year.
“This idea, while drastic, has the advantage of not costing anything, and requiring no significant investment in developing new technologies. The side effects are pretty messy, though, so the researchers offer a second suggestion: stop breathing so much.”
They continued by quoting one of the researchers, Dr. Mark Steer, as saying that if everyone could reduce their breathing by taking only two out of every three breaths, we could decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere by 0.63 gigatons. Dr. Steer concluded with maniacal exuberance, “That’s the same effect as saving five million acres of land from deforestation.”
Congratulations! Exercise has now become bad for the planet! We don’t need less obesity; we need more of it! Exercise causes people to breathe. All of this excess breathing is releasing too many tons of carbon into the atmosphere and is destroying the planet. If you walk, jog, or ride your bicycle, you are contributing to global warming. Of course, you can’t drive either, because burning so-called “fossil fuels” is also a big no no. So just sit still, shut up, and hold your breath! It’s that easy, and it’s necessary for your planet’s survival.
The new “wisdom” being offered by the aforementioned Dr. Steer and his colleague, Dr. Andrew Impey, flies in the face of the conventional model of “sustainability”. Exercise, after all, has been widely promoted as a “sustainable” method of transportation. The fact that our cities throughout America and the world are being “revitalized” to fit the “sustainable” living model suggests that the think tank trolls believe the heavier we are on the scale, the heavier our carbon “footprint” will be on the planet.
Lest you get the notion that any of this defies reason or common sense, let me assure you that it makes perfect sense — to someone who is mentally ill.
Mental illness, as defined by the National Institute of Mental Health, is “a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior (or all three) and that causes a person distress and difficulty in functioning.” The definition fits today’s environmental movement to a tee.
The belief that mankind cannot do anything without causing the planet to explode, is a contagious and virulent derangement of the mind. It changes a person’s thinking, feelings, and behavior and it is acquired by indoctrination. The infectious strains of this psychological disease is spread to our youth by infected grey-haired professors on foundation-driven university campuses, along with elementary, junior, and senior high schools under UNESCO control. In the broadcast media, printed in newspapers and magazines — everywhere we turn, there is heralded the lunatic creed of self-loathing. Its maddening precepts cause its poor victims extreme distress, as they believe the notion that if we don’t quit living, we’re all going to die.
Sufferers of this psychosis frequently express opinions and engage in behaviors that are self-contradictory, and counter-productive. They often accomplish the exact opposite of their stated intent. Victims of the disease also tend to exhibit extreme anti-social characteristics, including the unyielding desire to impose their will on all non-sufferers. They are very active in legislative bodies, neighborhood associations, and especially local city councils. Many are government bureaucrats. They possess insatiable appetites for grant money, which they then use to redesign and rebuild downtown areas, bulldozing everyone’s houses that stand in their way.
And they believe that human life is bad, because human life “pollutes.”
Last November, the British publication, The Daily Mail, did a profile of women who wouldn’t have babies, because they don’t believe babies are “eco-friendly.” In the article, they interviewed 35 year-old Toni Vernelli, who chose to murder her unborn child to “save the planet.” Vernelli pontificated,
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. … Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
Advertisement
Throughout human history, we’ve always been taught that to value human life is the defining principle of any civilization. Any group of people that ever failed to adhere to the basic foundation that human life is precious, has always been referred to as barbaric, uncivilized, and savage.
Now that Agenda 21 social engineers are weaving their poison into the collective psyche, the role of women as child-bearers has been redefined. Is it any coincidence that our Congress critters are preparing to pass legislation that would essentially make pregnancy a mental illness, treatable with drugs? We are being proselytized to a new death cult, where tiny micro-organisms, bugs, and rodents are exalted, and human beings are guilty because we are alive.
If you need further validation of that last point, then I want you to go to your local library and seek out a copy of Alan Weisman’s book, The World Without Us, wherein he fantasizes about how wonderful the earth could be if only all of the people just disappeared. The editors at Business Week wrote a glowing review of Weisman’s book, wherein they said,
“The extinction of humankind is a grim topic. Yet in The World Without Us, journalist Alan Weisman invokes this ancient specter as the jumping-off point for a refreshing, and oddly hopeful, look at the fate of the environment. His central question: What would earth be like if humanity just vanished?
“Weisman's answer is as fascinating as it is surprising. It turns out, from towering bridges to sprawling cities — not to mention delicate books or masterly artworks — precious few of man’s creations would last long. The author richly documents the damage done by industrial civilization, providing further momentum for business to go green. But his explanation of just how all of our methodically built cities, factories, and temples would implode under the slow assault of rot, rain, plants, and critters is the most compelling aspect of the book. The winners in Weisman's tour de décomposition are the very flora and fauna that today are under pitiless assault from humanity.”
Obviously, your writer understands that there are real environmental issues that must be addressed. But the doctrine of sustainable development does the environment a disservice, because when the real agenda is one of control, it actually becomes beneficial to destroy the environment in order to blame its destruction on normal human activity. It’s called the Hegelian dialectic — creating the problem, creating the opposition to the problem, and introducing your own predetermined solution.
A quote from the movie, The Matrix, is a perfect example of the insane conditioning to which we have steadily become accustomed. Considering who controls the entertainment industry, its ramifications are chilling.
“Every mammal on this planet distinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, a plague, and we are the cure.” (Emphasis added)
This is the psychopathic creed of sustainable development. It is the exact antithesis of compassion. It not only devalues human life; it holds it in utter contempt.
Where can we expect this “logic” to ultimately take us? Forced abortions? Forced sterilizations? Forced euthanasia? Mandatory population levels? More orchestrated wars? Designer diseases and laboratory-induced pandemics? More corporate control of our food supply? What will the role of the major pharmaceutical companies be in controlling the number of people? When humans are considered a liability, a disease, a virus, or a cancer on the planet, does it not open the flood gates to “justifiable” genocide?
Just what are the limits to the communitarian principle that is referred to as “the greater good”? Are there any limits? Can the argument be made that one should give up his right to life, property, privacy, or arms for the “greater good” of the planet? From whence did we get the term, “useless eaters”? Was it not coined by the same people who are pushing the “sustainable” duplicity?
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
We must always guard against all thinking that considers human life as anything less than sacred. Regardless of handicap, age, gender, skin color, born or unborn, all life is created by God and is precious. If we ever allow ourselves to slip into the mindset that places anything else above the priority of human life, we will begin to lose our compassion for our fellow human beings. To lose our compassion for those around us, is to lose the most basic component of what defines us as humans — and that is the sincerest form of insanity.
� 2008 - Darren Weeks - All Rights Reserved
