ABOUT a month ago I was encouraged to re-activate this blog by a couple of well-wishers who, flatteringly, told me that mostly they agreed with what I wrote and always found it worth reading.
Stroke the right bits and you’ll always get a response!
I cast around for a subject worthy of a re-launch (as a former salesman I am only to well aware that unless you make a big bang to get things off the ground again people will just mutter “same old, same old” and continue to ignore you) but not for the first time I kept finding that no sooner had I got the idea than I found that one or other of my blogging heroes — Matt Ridley or Booker or Montford at Bishop Hill — had got there first and said pretty much what I had planned to write and done it better.
A recent post at Bishop Hill inspired by a press release from Dart Energy has sparked off something of an internal spat on that site about the extent to which Montford is right to claim, as he does, that
It was really just a matter of time before the violence that has always been latent in the environmentalist movement spilled out into open view.
Not surprisingly there are commenters who take issue with such a forthright statement, and not all of them the usual trolling suspects who infest sceptical sites and whose only object is to shut down any sort of clear intelligent statement that casts any doubt on the firmly-held (or in some cases politically-conveniently-held) beliefs of the current generation of environmental hangers-on.
So far I have not mentioned either “climate change” or “global warming”, mainly because those two sound bites are irrelevant to the activities that are the subject of that posting even though one or other (depending on the state of the weather) are used as the excuse for the illegal, anti-social and increasingly violent activities spoken of.
When Montford uses the phrase “environmentalist movement” he is not referring to the disciples of people like John Muir or Theodore Roosevelt or Audubon or even David Attenborough or David Bellamy or a host of others who are conservationists as much as they are environmentalists. Over the past half-century there has grown up a movement which describes itself as “environmental” but has no regard for the beliefs of those who established “The Environment” as a cause. This movement is characterised first of all by severe tunnel vision which breeds an unquestioning belief in the rightness of everything it does or says, followed closely and inevitably by intolerance of even the mildest opposition to its goals.
Add to this the inevitable frustration born of the fact that nowhere — apparently with the exception of Brighton! — have the environmentalists succeeded in persuading even five per cent of the population that “green” philosophy has got anything much going for it and it becomes easy to see why the propensity for violence is never far beneath the surface.
This violence doesn’t necessarily take the form of physical attacks though it appears that in the instance quoted a “weel-kent face” (sorry for the Scotticism) has allegedly allowed her feelings to get the better of her. But if the violence is not always explicit the urge for violence is. Read any article on any aspect of environmentalism in the Guardian (or even the Telegraph, on occasion) and watch what the commenters think should be done to those who disagree with them. Whose bright idea was it to make a video which portrayed blowing up kids who didn’t kow-tow to the party line on global warming, currently the ultimate dogma for the committed environmentalist?
Or perhaps one can ask, which sick mind thought up that concept in the first place?
Patrick Moore may have disowned Greenpeace, the baby he gave birth to 45 years ago (or 42 depending on who you read), but its raison d’être then as now was direct action which meant criminal behaviour and at least by implication violence in order to get its own way. There is a very thin line between trashing GM crops and trashing people who get in the way of whatever “greater good” you have persuaded yourself to believe in.
Friends of the Earth are no better. Their acronym ‘foe’ is apt since ‘Enemies of Mankind’ (at least western mankind) is a more accurate description of their philosophy. They are big fans of “economic justice” and “climate justice” and “food sovereignty” and against “neo-liberalism” and it is very hard to decide whether more than about one per cent of those who pay lip-service to these bits of enviro-management speak have the faintest idea what the hell they mean or would sign up to them if they did.
One commenter on the blog post linked to above opined that the protesters at Dart Energy site were
a real fundamentalist movement on a level with the animal rights lot
to which I suggested that they almost certainly are “the animal rights lot”. The crossover between environmental activists — what I call ‘neo-luddites’ — and the animal rights activists is considerable and there for all to see. “Activism” has become a way of life for a class of people with too much brain power and not enough to keep them occupied. It appears to have replaced organised football hooliganism as the activity of choice for lazy undergraduates with a chip or highly motivated but unemployed whizz-kids with an over-inflated opinion of their own self-worth and the ability to bully lesser beings into acting as masseurs for their egos.
Violence is what they are about. Environmentalism is the current battleground.