- Illegal Immigrant Allegedly Kills Texas Cheerleader in Thanksgiving Day DUI Crash
The Link To Todays Show:
The Link To Todays Show:
The Great Global Warming Scam Began with the Nazis…
If you really want to understand the great global warming scam you must listen to my podcast this week with Rupert Darwall.
In his new book Green Tyranny, Darwall tells a story so extraordinary and implausible that it’s no wonder most of the mainstream media has been too scared to touch it.
The bottom line: it all started with the Nazis.
Yes, I know. It sounds so click-baity, doesn’t it?
That’ll be why even those journals and writers that have reviewed the book favorably have tended to steer clear of the key chapter in Darwall’s book. The one mischievously titled ‘Europe’s First Greens’.
Europe’s First Greens were, of course, the Nazis.
The documentary evidence provided by Darwall is irrefutable, for this is a considered, well-researched and scholarly work not a potboiler.
What Darwall demonstrates is that the ideology driving the current climate scare originated in Hitler’s Germany.
Angela Merkel’s Energiewende, the brainwashing of your kids in school with green propaganda, the Climate Industrial Complex, the black outs in South Australia, Solyndra, Obama promising that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket”, the bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes destroying a skyline near you, the real reason Trump just had to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord – it’s all basically the fault of the Nazis.
That’s because Nazis – though similar in so many ways to their fellow totalitarians the Communists – had at least one major point of difference with Marxist ideology: they feared and loathed industrial progress and they worshipped nature.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man.
The Fuhrer, in other words, was as big a Gaia worshipper as even Naomi Klein or Emma Thompson or Leonardo di Caprio.
As Hitler thought, so did the Nazi intelligentsia. Many of them were vegetarians and, like Rudolf Hess and Agriculture Minister Walter Darre were big fans of organic farming. The party was fiercely anti-smoking (even though the Germans continued to smoke fanatically so long as tobacco was available). They were also massively into “renewable” energy, especially wind, tidal power and hydroelectric.
Hitler said in a dinner party conversation in 1941:
“We shall have to use every method of encouraging whatever might ensure us the gain of a single kilowatt…Coal will disappear one day.”
He then speculated on renewable solutions to this ‘peak coal’ problem:
“The future belongs, surely, to water – to the wind and the tides.”
(This isn’t mentioned in the book but Hitler’s favorite SS commando – Otto Skorzeny – who miraculously survived the war and retired to live in Spain spent his later years campaigning on behalf of the wind industry.)
Darwall doesn’t mince his words:
The Nazis’ profound hostility to capitalism and their identification with nature-politics led them to advocate green policies half a century before any other political party. As an approximation, subtract Nazi race-hate, militarism and desire for world conquest, and Nazi ideology ends up looking not dissimilar to today’s environmental movement.
What Darwall goes on to demonstrate is how this mindset, unabated by the defeat of Nazi Germany, continued to dominate European political thought. This was especially so in the two countries most responsible for promulgating the climate change scare: Sweden and Germany.
In Germany, the Nazis’ green ideology became linked inextricably with that of the Peace movement – which, with a certain irony, was largely sponsored by the Soviet Union.
Sweden, meanwhile, did most to get the global warming scare up and running in the early days. Bert Bolin, the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a Swede.
You’ll have to read Darwall’s book for the full, rather complicated story. By the end you’ll have an answer to perhaps the most puzzling of the many questions about the global warming industry: why, given the scientific evidence is so flimsy, does it carry on pushing its cause so fervently?
The answer is simple: because “global warming” is not about “the science” and never was about “the science.”
Like the “acid rain” scare and the “nuclear winter” scare, the man-made global warming scare is a fake news story designed to push a political and economic agenda.
At the bottom of that agenda is the same superstitious fear the Nazis had: that industrial progress is morally wrong because it is against Nature.
Hence the greenies’ obsession with renewables. Despite all the evidence that renewables do at least as much environmental damage as fossil fuels, only much more expensively, and without making any meaningful difference to “climate change” the green ideology persists in pretending that renewables are the “clean” “natural” alternative to “dirty” fossil fuels.
It’s about emotion not logic; about the narrative, not reality.
For decades we’ve been gulled by a compliant (and invariably ignorant) media into believing that the global warming scare is about scientists doing clever sciencey stuff and reaching important conclusions which the world can only ignore at its peril.
But actually, all along, the tail has been wagging the dog.
The scientists are a virtual irrelevance in this story: merely the useful idiots of a political agenda.
That agenda is part religion – a kind of pagan nature worship expressed through opposition to Western industrial civiliation and the embrace of retrograde technologies like wind power.
And it’s part leftist politics and economics: a way by which Europe can destroy and overtake the United States’ economic hegemony by neutralising one of its greatest competitive advantages – the abundance of fossil fuels which have now made it the world’s number one energy superpower.
Donald Trump probably hasn’t a clue about the intellectual and ideological undercurrents which created the great global warming scare. But he’s a businessman and saw what was happening through gut instinct.
Global warming is a scam – the biggest the world has ever seen.
Trump, for one, didn’t fall for it.
Wednesday on ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD) said former President Barack Obama’s decision to set up Organizing for America rather than “infusing” his energy into the Democratic Party devastated the party on state and local levels like a “bad forest fire.”
O’Malley said, “To put it kindly, President Obama decided to set up a separate political organization rather than infusing that energy of his candidacy and his amazing and historic victory, rather than infusing that energy into the veins of the Democratic party and making the Democratic party new and more energetic, instead the president and his people decided to set up a separate organization in ‘Organizing for America,’ OFA. I guess the president, perhaps and his people, thought their roles in history was to transform us, allow all of to transcend beyond the need for political parties. ”
He continued, “So when the Republicans and their small group of very wealthy donors, who are not afraid to write big checks, saw what was happening, they immediately filled that vacuum. And in a very methodical way, fielded candidates with a whole lot of money to run for state senate, state legislators, backed candidates for governor. And they were able to wipe us out at the state level and increasingly at the local level. We’ve never gone through a period of time, at least not in modern history were the Democratic party lost so many seats and so many governors offices even as our president was a Democratic. That was a mistake that we made. We have to learn from that mistake. And I believe what is happening now is the party is regenerating itself, almost like after a bad forest fire.”
Never content with their destructiveness, wait until they learn the history of Mount Rushmore. Not even 1,000 Confederate statues would draw the same outrage.
The 60-foot high sculpture in South Dakota — depicting Presidents Washington, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, and Lincoln — was sculpted by a Ku Klux Klan member. Prepare for the onslaught.
Gutzon Borglum originally worked on the Stone Mountain project, which one Democrat candidate has already demanded be permanently vandalised in an attempt to erase American history. As AJC News reports:
Removing the faces of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson would take a monster of a sandblaster and require a change in state law. The Georgia code has a clear mandate for the memorial, saying it should be “preserved and protected for all time as a tribute to the bravery and heroism of the citizens of this state who suffered and died in their cause.”
How befitting then, that the totalitarian left should come for the Shrine of Democracy next. After all, the Nation of Islam has already decried the great American monument, and the uncomfortable truths about its sculptor will add fuel to the fire for the anti-conservationist minded.
Writer Alex Heard revealed in the New Republic some correspondence between Borglum and then-KKK Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson, who cut his political teeth in the Socialist Party, before joining the Democrats, then in later life, defecting to the Republican Party.
“In addition to Jews and blacks, he especially disliked Catholics and the ‘wretched refuse’ who are welcomed with raised torch by the Statue of Liberty.”
Writing in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Democrat-endorsing journalist Ron Way wrote of Mount Rushmore:
As it was in colonial America, the young country’s expansion was fueled by “Manifest Destiny” — a self-supreme notion that any land coveted by Euro-Americans was, by providence, rightfully theirs for the taking.
The sculptures were chiseled by an imported Ku Klux Klansman on a granite mountain owned by indigenous tribes on what they considered sacred land — land that the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1980 was illegally taken from them.
In other words, the left has already been laying the groundwork for an assault on this iconic monument.
What better way to do so, as Mr. Way does, than by calling into question the track records of the men it depicts?
Of the presidents, Way writes:
But the four also sanctioned, and themselves practiced, dominance over those with darker skin.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Abraham Lincoln famously emancipated slaves, but he supported eradicating Indian tribes from western lands and approved America’s largest-ever mass execution, the hanging of 38 Dakota in Mankato for their alleged crimes in the 1862 war along the Minnesota River
Teddy Roosevelt, in his “The Winning of the West,” wrote: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are … .”
The rhetoric is handily similar to that invoked by the Nation of Islam. An image carrying the group’s web address states:
“George Washington enslaved 350 Africans. His home state of Virginia was the prime breeder of Black people for the domestic slave trade, and at one point the state exported at least 6,000 Black people annually — its biggest ‘cash crop’.
“Thomas Jefferson enslaved 200 Africans. He wrote in 1812 that the Indians ‘will relapse into barbarism and misery, lose numbers by war and want, and we shall be obliged to drive them, with the beasts of the forest, into the Stony mountains.’
“Theodore Roosevelt believed that Blacks’ religions had no ethical basis and that the Africans were ‘ape-like, naked savages who dwell in the woods and prey on creatures not much wilder or lower than themselves.
“Abraham Lincoln [said:] ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so’.”
There is much to be said on all these issues, for instance, in the very same letter cited by the Nation of Islam, Jefferson wrote of his “attachment and commiseration” for “Indians”. He recalled to John Adams of Outassete, “the warrior and orator of the Cherokees”, that “His sounding voice, distinct articulation, animated actions, and the solemn silence of his people at their several fires, filled me with awe and veneration”, and explained his defensive posture, rather than the aggressive nature implied by the aforementioned quote: “The possession of that country secures our women and children for ever from the tomahawk and scalping knife”.
As much as I wish the revisionist, half-baked “history” of these men and the monuments to them was simply on the fringes of the internet, it has even begun to penetrate American classrooms.
Fox News reported in 2014 that the mother of an eight-year-old child found “a handout from the Nation of Islam that portrayed the presidents on Mount Rushmore as being racists”.
Sommer Bauer tells me her son was given The Nation of Islam handout at Harold McCormick Elementary School in Elizabethton. The handout asked “What does it take to be on Mount Rushmore?”
In 2015, the hard-left website Daily Kos published an article about “sanitized” American history, pointing to Stone Mountain and Mount Rushmore as monuments built by a KKK member. But their own sanitization is clear for most with a working knowledge of American history to see.
Klan membership was around 5 million nationwide in the 1920s when construction began on Rushmore. This meant about three in 20 eligible people in the United States were members of the KKK. Can you guess which political party was most heavily affiliated with the Klan? The Democrats, of course.
In fact there were so many Klansmen in attendance at the New York-based convention that the whole episode came to be known as “Klanbake“, and descended into a farce the likes of which had never been seen before in U.S. political history.
It took the party 103 ballots to settle on a presidential candidate, and they ran extraordinarily close to nominating the Klan’s favoured candidate William McAdoo, who never rejected the KKK’s support.
No mention of this, of course, by any of those who have already attempted to bring the history of the monument into question. No apologies either, from the Democrats who continue to support the tearing down of these statues and symbols, for the fact that their own party fostered and incubated a lot of the views they now claim to stand against.
“But that was almost one hundred years ago! The Southern Strategy! The Southern Strategy!”
These are the excuses deployed by the left. Nothing excuses older history as far as their foot soldiers are concerned. But these are their excuses.
It is worth recalling that while many think the Democrat obsession with race ended in the 1930s and 40s, it did in fact get arguably worse: underground.
Author Robert A. Caro’s notes in his book Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, the Democrat president once uttered the following words, aboard Air Force One, no less:
These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
Doesn’t this just go perfectly hand-in-hand with Democrat duplicity? The history of Planned Parenthood, for instance, whose founder even gave a talk to a KKK women’s branch.
We’ve been here before. At least, other human beings around the world have.
I’m not talking about those who have cast off oppression who, in the fervor of celebration, pull down the likenesses of Saddam Hussein or similar. I’m talking about the fascists within Islamic extremist movements who want to obliterate the history of the areas they conquer. I’m talking about the French revolutionaries who sought to purge their nation’s history. These things are usually a prelude to the purging of ideas, and eventually people too.
It follows that such attitudes — the “cultural appropriation” of the joy of those freed from legitimate tyranny — would lead to a country more divided than united.
But realistically, if the left wants to continue tearing down America’s history — no matter how ugly, especially when uncontextualized — then there is one major institution they absolutely must also destroy in order to be morally, historically, and intellectually consistent: the Democratic Party of the United States.
Martin Kugler, Austrian historian and founder of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe, said Christians were being marginalised on the continent while Muslims are treated much more carefully.
Speaking to ACI Prensa, the Spanish edition of the Catholic News Agency, Mr. Kugler accused Europe’s elites of pressuring Christians into hiding their faith while permitting Muslims to display theirs.
Europe has witnessed a secularist offensive, he added, but politicians have different criteria in dealing with Christians and Muslims, permitting the Islamic veil while trying to removing crosses from public places.
He cited the example of air hostesses and nurses disciplined, or sometimes even fired, for wearing small crosses, or attempts to remove nativity scenes from public places.
“The justification is separation between church and state, but in my opinion this is no more than an excuse. What European radical secularism is trying to do, in the name of tolerance and neutrality in the public square, is impose an ideology that means the expulsion of Christians from public life.”
Mr. Kugler also pointed to the rise of Islam in Europe driven by demographic change, saying it is a “great challenge” for Christian culture, but adding: “I think aggressive secularism is more dangerous for European Christians.”
“If Christians had the freedom to follow their conscience, with their schools and their rights, it would be much easier for them to confront the rise of Muslim culture.”
He referred to the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel who said: “We do not need less Islam, we need more Christianity.”
“It is interesting that Angela Merkel made this statement, because she is not a very observant Christian,” he added.
It is also necessary for Christians to have better knowledge of their own faith if they are to have any hope of protecting it.
“Many German Christians do not know to explain the message of the bible to Muslims, or the significance of Christian celebrations such as Easter. They do not know how to explain Church teaching. There is a lack of formation and bravery on the part of European Christians.”
“Many Christian citizens, or ‘conservatives’, behave like an ‘angry majority’ instead of acting like a ‘creative minority’, forgetting that practising Christians in Europe are already a minority.”
Approximately 30 countries are refusing to accept the deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes in the U.S., according to Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar.
While these countries are refusing to accept the deportations of these criminals, the U.S. government is still issuing visas and student visas to citizens of those countries, according to the Texan congressman. There is already a law on the books which allows the U.S. to hold visas from a country that is not taking back its criminals, but according to Cuellar, the U.S. is not enforcing it.
“We’re not enforcing it, which is amazing. So now my intent is to go back to our committee on appropriations and affect their funding until they do that,” Cuellar told Sharyl Attkisson, host of Full Measure, in an interview.
Cuellar, a Democratic member of the House Committee on Appropriations, told Attkisson that the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity can only be held for a certain period of time before they must be released.
“That means you’re releasing criminals into our streets because those countries refuse to take back those criminal aliens,” said Cuellar. “That’s wrong. And especially I think it’s even worse that this is already on the books, and we’re still issuing business tourist visas and student visas to countries that refuse to take back their criminal aliens. That’s wrong, and we’re hoping to change that.”
Cuellar has not been afraid to break with some of his party leadership on immigration issues in the past. He was known as one of former President Barack Obama’s fiercest critics on illegal immigration. Cuellar teamed up with Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn in 2014 to help pass a bill that would speed up the deportation of unaccompanied minors. His stance disappointed his fellow Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid.
There are many foreign countries that refuse to retake illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, according to the congressman, including Vietnam, Cuba and China. Cuellar said that diplomacy plays a factor in the government’s refusal to enforce the law, as the Department of State and other federal agencies do not want to upset foreign partners.
But, for Cuellar, diplomacy is no excuse to put American lives in danger.
“But my response is, but we can upset our constituents, we can upset our way of life that we have here by allowing those criminals to be released?” said Cuellar. “And basically the response from the State Department is because you have to work with the State Department and Homeland Security. And the State Department, with all due respect, was focused on diplomacy.”
Cuellar noted that he understands the importance of diplomacy in these situations, but that it also important to prevent convicted criminals from returning to American neighborhoods. He told Attkisson that he plans to push for the U.S. government to withhold visas from countries that refuse to take back their convicted criminals.
You can watch Cuellar’s entire interview with Attkisson at Full Measure’s website Sunday at 9:30 a.m.