November 3, 2018
The Nazi Roots of Climate Change
By Dan Dagget
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic candidate for Congress from New York's 14th Congressional District (the Bronx and
Queens), recently compared dealing with those who deny climate change and oppose her party's measures to counter this "existential threat" to fighting the Nazis in WW II.
We owe Ms. Ocasio-Cortez a high degree of thanks for this important warning, but one awakening has to occur before we can take full advantage of its true value. When it comes to "climate change" as well as other "environmentalist" issues, it is Ocasio- Cortez and her party who have more in common with Hitler's Third Reich than the Republicans and conservatives who oppose them and whom they smear as "Nazis" with remarks like hers.
Please note that I'm not saying liberal environmentalists are Nazis, nor that they are anti-Semitic or want to start a world
war. However, since Ocasio-Cortez (and other Democrats) brought the Nazis into this discussion, there are striking similarities between these two political movements – sufficient similarities that the Bronx Democrat's warning should have our alarm lights flashing, big time! The fact that modern Democrats share with the Nazis the claim that the only way to heal what ails this planet and perhaps even prevent the demise of all of humanity is to put them in power certainly has my alarms flashing.
In "The Nazi Roots of the Global Warming Scare" by Kerry Jackson in Investor's Business Daily, Rupert Darwall, author ofGreen Tyranny, is quoted as having stated, in an interview with Encounter Books, "If you look at what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s, in their environmental policies, virtually every theme you see in the modern environmental movement, the Nazis were doing[.]"
Among those themes common to the modern environmental movement and the 1930s Nazis was "climate change." In "The Nazi Origins of Renewable Energy (and Global Warming)," David Archibald wrote that the first German-language article (perhaps the first political article) on "human-caused climate change" was created in 1941 by Hermann Flohn, a scientist for the German Meteorological Service who became the chief meteorologist for the Luftwaffe High Command. The title of that article translates as "The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor."
The Nazi Roots of Climate Change
By Dan Dagget
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic candidate for Congress from New York's 14th Congressional District (the Bronx and
Queens), recently compared dealing with those who deny climate change and oppose her party's measures to counter this "existential threat" to fighting the Nazis in WW II.
We owe Ms. Ocasio-Cortez a high degree of thanks for this important warning, but one awakening has to occur before we can take full advantage of its true value. When it comes to "climate change" as well as other "environmentalist" issues, it is Ocasio- Cortez and her party who have more in common with Hitler's Third Reich than the Republicans and conservatives who oppose them and whom they smear as "Nazis" with remarks like hers.
Please note that I'm not saying liberal environmentalists are Nazis, nor that they are anti-Semitic or want to start a world
war. However, since Ocasio-Cortez (and other Democrats) brought the Nazis into this discussion, there are striking similarities between these two political movements – sufficient similarities that the Bronx Democrat's warning should have our alarm lights flashing, big time! The fact that modern Democrats share with the Nazis the claim that the only way to heal what ails this planet and perhaps even prevent the demise of all of humanity is to put them in power certainly has my alarms flashing.
In "The Nazi Roots of the Global Warming Scare" by Kerry Jackson in Investor's Business Daily, Rupert Darwall, author ofGreen Tyranny, is quoted as having stated, in an interview with Encounter Books, "If you look at what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s, in their environmental policies, virtually every theme you see in the modern environmental movement, the Nazis were doing[.]"
Among those themes common to the modern environmental movement and the 1930s Nazis was "climate change." In "The Nazi Origins of Renewable Energy (and Global Warming)," David Archibald wrote that the first German-language article (perhaps the first political article) on "human-caused climate change" was created in 1941 by Hermann Flohn, a scientist for the German Meteorological Service who became the chief meteorologist for the Luftwaffe High Command. The title of that article translates as "The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor."
That is just the tip of this "common theme" iceberg. In order to pursue their stated goal of "preventing harm to the environment," Hitler's Third Reich passed the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz (Reich Nature Protection Law) in 1933. According to Duncan Bayne in "How to Spot a Nazi," the purpose of this act was to increase control over the German populace by requiring that decisions on how a person could use his property be first approved by the Reich. Sound familiar?
Further confirming the Reich's identification as a "Green" party and its
similarity to America's liberal Democrats: the Nazis were among the first,
if not the first, to enact laws to protect wilderness and endangered
species. Granted, the species and the forests protected were examples
iconic of Germany. Nevertheless, the "common theme" connection
remains. In addition, the Nazis passed the first animal rights laws and the first anti-vivisection law, and they were the first to protect wolves in 1930s Germany. Liberals, mostly Democrats, have passed similar measures in the modern U.S.
Where does this lead, and why should we take warning? An author known for his insights, H.L. Mencken, wrote in his book Prejudices: First Series, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
Providing support for that insight, the campaigns of the Nazis of the 1930s and the liberal Democrats of today are both based on the contention that not putting their political party in charge of humankind's relationship to planet Earth, to all its plants and animals, and to one another will cause everything (including the ecosystem, habitat, weather/climate...) to deteriorate, get worse, perhaps even cause the demise of humankind.
In other words, the real common theme between these two movements, and plenty of others like them, is, if all problems can be traced to your opponents, the only solution to everything is...you.
What's an alternative to this "put us in charge or we're all going to die" madness? The U.S. solution: Give people the freedom to recognize problems, environmental as well as otherwise, and address those problems with practical rather than political solutions. That pits us against our problems rather than against each other.
Synergies made possible by free enterprise and free elections in the U.S. have solved more problems, environmental, economic, and political, and have sustained more freedoms in the process, than any "put us in charge or else" regimes anywhere on the planet.
As a matter of fact, if (or when) the climate ever does begin to change in a manner that requires action on our part, whether that change is caused by nature or by us, it is a much better bet that an effective means to deal with that change will come to us via pragmatism rather than dogmatism.
...if we have the freedom to apply it.
Liked this article?
Donate to American Thinker to support more articles like this.
Further confirming the Reich's identification as a "Green" party and its
similarity to America's liberal Democrats: the Nazis were among the first,
if not the first, to enact laws to protect wilderness and endangered
species. Granted, the species and the forests protected were examples
iconic of Germany. Nevertheless, the "common theme" connection
remains. In addition, the Nazis passed the first animal rights laws and the first anti-vivisection law, and they were the first to protect wolves in 1930s Germany. Liberals, mostly Democrats, have passed similar measures in the modern U.S.
Where does this lead, and why should we take warning? An author known for his insights, H.L. Mencken, wrote in his book Prejudices: First Series, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
Providing support for that insight, the campaigns of the Nazis of the 1930s and the liberal Democrats of today are both based on the contention that not putting their political party in charge of humankind's relationship to planet Earth, to all its plants and animals, and to one another will cause everything (including the ecosystem, habitat, weather/climate...) to deteriorate, get worse, perhaps even cause the demise of humankind.
In other words, the real common theme between these two movements, and plenty of others like them, is, if all problems can be traced to your opponents, the only solution to everything is...you.
What's an alternative to this "put us in charge or we're all going to die" madness? The U.S. solution: Give people the freedom to recognize problems, environmental as well as otherwise, and address those problems with practical rather than political solutions. That pits us against our problems rather than against each other.
Synergies made possible by free enterprise and free elections in the U.S. have solved more problems, environmental, economic, and political, and have sustained more freedoms in the process, than any "put us in charge or else" regimes anywhere on the planet.
As a matter of fact, if (or when) the climate ever does begin to change in a manner that requires action on our part, whether that change is caused by nature or by us, it is a much better bet that an effective means to deal with that change will come to us via pragmatism rather than dogmatism.
...if we have the freedom to apply it.
Liked this article?
Donate to American Thinker to support more articles like this.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment