March 3, 2007

Column of the Weekend: Coulter Nails It — What Happens If Globalarmists Get What They Really Want

Oops, she did it again yesterday at CPAC (though there is context everyone is ignoring, the remark referred to at the Hot Air link was inexcusable. March 4 — So where’s the outrage over this? March 4Well said, Dean Barnett. March 5 — Barnett, yet again).

Nevertheless, Coulter has had a couple of her best columns in years during the past few weeks. In this one from Wednesday, she really has the enviro movement pegged, using her patented over-the-top rhetoric (but not over the line, as her CPAC comment Friday was) to make sad-but-true points (internal link added by me):

….. Because of the industrialization of agriculture — using massive amounts of fossil fuel — only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

“Global warming” is the left’s pagan rage against mankind. If we can’t produce industrial waste, then we can’t produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book “Silent Spring” written by … Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off “useless eaters.” If we have to live in a pure “natural” environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas — 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the “global warming” campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn’t emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

“Global warming” is the liberal’s stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for “diversity”), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

The biggest point Coulter hits on: Whether or not they like it, or whether or not they even acknowledge it, even environmental “true believers” who don’t agree with Biz Weak letter writer Steven Wascher (featured at this post last week) about “what environmentalists dare not say aloud” — that there has to be “a substantial reduction in global population” — are going to find themselves moving inexorably in that direction if they get everything they want. Yes, they, will.

_______________________________________

UPDATE: The list of a dozen enviro leading lights enumerated at this link admits to substantial worldwide population reduction as a goal, or a wish. These are not fringe players. Why should I not take them at their word?

Share

7 Comments

  1. [...] Update: The mystery post has arrived! Looks to me like Tom saw the faggot thing and thought twice, then had to figure out a way to spin out of it. See for yourself. Looks fully spun to me. [...]

    Pingback by Plunderbund » Bizzy Thinks Twice, Shuns Coulter — March 3, 2007 @ 11:25 pm

  2. I must say that up to this moment I have not been exposed to this anti-humanity strain in the environmental extremist movement. This post makes a number of things clear to me. I am beginning to understand how my strong desire for clean air and clean water must never degenerate to “whacko” status. Human life has the highest priority in nature. Anyone who says otherwise is, to me at least, nuts or evil or both. Thanks for an interesting and enlightening post, Tom.

    Comment by Excelsior — March 4, 2007 @ 12:03 am

  3. #2, that is indeed the bottom line. Hope #1 notices.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 4, 2007 @ 1:05 am

  4. Tom,

    What is wrong with Coulter implying Edward’s is a faggot?

    Do you stand for Free Speech or Selective Free Speech?

    Please do not get sucked into the homo sexual agenda.

    King

    Comment by King — March 4, 2007 @ 9:51 am

  5. #4, (tired but true cliche) “With great power comes great responsibility.”

    Coulter can be seen as representing her own views and only her own views in her columns; broadening them to all of conservatives, though it has been tried, is nonetheless unfair and incorrect.

    Coulter, when invited to speak at CPAC, has been pre-screened by conference organizers and determined to be an acceptable representative of the conservative movement.

    It is therefore a big mistake for her to use inappropriate language, even cleverly, at such a forum, because it’s first, bad manners to the hosts and attendees you have just let down, and second, it gives those who don’t agree with conservatives further reason to shut their minds, because ALL conservatives are now associated with what she said, because the leaders of one of their biggest conferences invited her because of her conservative cred.

    I’m NOT saying she can’t say what she said. I’m saying she was really stupid to say it. It has nothing to do with my take on the homosexual agenda.

    Also to be clear, what Coulter did was nowhere near as egregious as, for example, what Durbin, to name just one, said about our troops and the lies about conditions at Gitmo. Durbin has greater power, and greater responsibility, and has been incredibly more irresponsible with it. At least a dozen other examples of Democrats with real power saying worse things could be cited with little effort. In fact, a dozen could probably be had from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry alone. Just because they are more wrong doesn’t mean I can’t say that Coulter was wrong to say what she said (less wrong, but still wrong).

    Comment by TBlumer — March 4, 2007 @ 10:56 am

  6. I didn’t know Hitler was a liberal. Are all right-wing fascists liberals? Maybe I’m just new at this.

    Comment by TBarley — March 5, 2007 @ 11:24 pm

  7. #6, you must be new. The German Party was the National SOCIALIST party, and Hitler was a totalitarian with far more left-wing than right-wing tendencies.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 5, 2007 @ 11:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.