🚀 go-pugleaf

Why Gore's "be on the safe side for survival's sake" argument
is the road to both servitude and diminished survival chances.

An old Green friend writes:

From: Robert V_______
To: "Dick Eastman" <eastman@wolfenet.com>
Subject: Re: Why Kissinger and Brzezinski invented Green (3 sufficient
quotes)

> The word 'conservative' has taken strange meaning lately.
>
> When you don't know the consequences of your actions, it seems prudent to
> assume the worst and attempt to do the least damage. That would be
> 'conservative' in my view.
>
> Instead, it seems that we are coming up with rationalizations that allow
us
> (the US) to continue to be the most profligate energy consumer in the
world.
> It is ironic that the SUV has turned out to be fairly unsafe because it
was
> loopholes in legislation that would have resulted in some energy
> efficiencies that originally allowed SUVs in the first place. Anyway, we
are
> not even attempting to become more energy efficient.
>
> Do you know that Haiti was once a lush, prosperous island ? It has become
> something else as a result of population pressure.
>
> We are embarked on a one time only experiment. If we are wrong, there is
not
> another planet ever found that will support life. The result of this
> experiment can substantially degrade the quality of life for every
> generation beyond this one, and may destroy humanity as a species.
> It would be 'conservative' to be a little careful about it. Why should you
> fight that ?
---------------
---------------

Here is my resonse to Robert and all others deceived by the globalism's
well-financed exploitation  of too-trusting Greens:
---
Good to hear from you again, Robert.  It seems like a long time.

> The word 'conservative' has taken strange meaning lately.

I think the word conservatism is finally and correctly being distinguished
from populism --  and it turns out that most middle Americans were populists
all along.
"Paleoconservative" is not longer the right word for the middle classe's
ideology.
Limbaugh who has been charged with delivering middle America for Wall Street
has lost his following as the vast gulf between populism and conservatism is
discovered.

> When you don't know the consequences of your actions, it seems prudent to
> assume the worst and attempt to do the least damage. That would be
> 'conservative' in my view.

Your definition of 'conservative' is a description of  personality, not of
politics.
Don't confuse the two.  When you are talking about attitude toward the
unknown
you are not discussing politics  -- characterization at that level is much
too abstract to mean anyuthing in politics.

Conservative in politics means favoring  laws that protect the current
distribution of wealth and power; that favor rigging markets (creating
monopoly preserving "barriers to entry") so that new competition does not
upset things.  It means favoring the class that recieves interest payments
over the years with monetary policies that maximize the debt obligations of
those who will be providing that flow by the sweat of their brow at compound
interest -- that is, conservatism is  favoritism over and above the "rewards
for saving" and the "rewards of innovation" and the "rewards of hard work"
that obtain without the monetary manipulations.  I won't elaborate here --
I'm sure you get the idea.

> Instead, it seems that we are coming up with rationalizations that allow
us
> (the US) to continue to be the most profligate energy consumer in the
world.

Profligate only if and when energy consumption is a vice.  It may not be the
vice those seeking restricted energy supply to raise energy prices are
having us believe.

> It is ironic that the SUV has turned out to be fairly unsafe because it
was
> loopholes in legislation that would have resulted in some energy
> efficiencies that originally allowed SUVs in the first place.

I am no judge of irony. I do not know what you mean by "fairly unsafe,"
as safety is a variable that no one has yet quantified and "fairlyness" is
a subjectivism you have given me no reason to share.  This crypto
techno wonk jive is irrelevant -- you are certainly not saving us from
 SUV's.

>Anyway, we are
> not even attempting to become more energy efficient.

Certainly this is not true.  What you mean, I think, is that we have not had
government restriction on energy use or a regulating tax on BTUs etc.
Nevertheless,  households and firms are cutting indeed cutting energy use
all the time, and now more than ever in response to globalist price gouging.
(And will do so even more when these outrageous  prices are felt.)

But, Robert, you have left out of this letter why you do not find worth
mentioning the option of increasing acceptable energy sources --of
developing  new technologies, perfecting old ones, etc.  When was the
technological approach to the desparity between demand and supply
bandoned  -- when did you eliminate  increase of supply from society's
public-choice space   and why?
>
> Do you know that Haiti was once a lush, prosperous island ? It has become
> something else as a result of population pressure.

I know missionaires who are spending their lives there.  They tell a
different story.
I also know what the drug lords have done to Haiti.  I know about Aristede's
ties with the druglords and with China.  I know, for example, that Clinton
invaded Haiti all of a sudden only two days after the Hatian Pariliament
that threw out Aristiede began its investigation of the Cuba-China-Aristede
drug trade connection.  Clinton overthrew the Parliament and had the
ministers conducting the investigation arrested thrown in prison following a
martial law trial where most remain to this day. I know that organized crime
has made middle-class existence impossible.  Voodoo is the officially
recognized religion there now, Robert .  Finally, have you considered that
Manhattan Island and Hong Kong are a lot more crowded than Haiti has ever
been?

> We are embarked on a one time only experiment. If we are wrong,
> there is not another planet ever found that will support life.The result
> of this experiment can substantially degrade the quality of life for every
> generation beyond this one, and may destroy humanity as a species.
> It would be 'conservative' to be a little careful about it. Why should you
> fight that ?

This argument, "Do as we say even if the logic is not there, because if we
are right-- and you are in no position to know that we are not-- then the
human race is finished."  This is exactly what my post has exposed as a
deliberate tactic to deceive people into relinquishing their self-governing
authority to the secretive elites who can manage these things better and
take care of us etc.  --  the same bunch of elite bastards who have been
plundering the world, arranging its wars and depressions, cornering its
assets, and evicting and debt-enslaving its people (not you, Robert, but
those who have your brains and/or your balls in a vice.)

Humanity's  resources to face the challenges of our species are scarce.  We
do not know what the various challenges we will face in the future are.  We
must remain flexible in responding to what comes -- alert, quick to
respond -- but also mindful of what the dangerous unknowns might be around
the corner.

If we cut back on energy generation and energy use (on industrialization, on
productivie capacity of all kinds, on our power to effect the environment
when we have to)  we are reducing  general capability to "to be on the safe
side" with respect to one danger  ---    consider an America that put itself
on the safe side by building a lot of battleships -- but missed the
challenge of aircraft ;  or of France when thinking in terms of world war
one trench warfare built the Maginot Line, not mindiful that the real danger
now was from tanks and aircraft.

Would you cut off your hands or a leg to reduce your need for caloric
intake?
Why not?  Because both survival and quality of life are better served by not
making that reduction of intake -- but rather by increasing the ability to g
et food.  Man is the brain creature -- he must rely on the brain  -- not on
...you know what  ... not on your CONSERVATISM, Robert.

But the quotes I have given you (Kissinger, Gore and the Trilateral
Commission white paper) indicate that the Establishment which is behind the
misdirected Green push for economic constriction -- life-possibilities
constriction -- is for the purposes of creating a crisis in order to
frighten people into turning over political power to a world government.
This is not my conspiracy theory -- and thank you, Robert, for not saying
that it is, rather it is actual admission by the key players themselves --
the "smoking gun" if you like.

Are we still friends?  Or more important, can you pull off the conservative
sock over you head and -- risking your mainline job -- join me at the fringe
to really fight for the survival and fulfillment of the human adventure.

With warm regard,

Dick
Yakima
Every man is responsible to every other man.