GREEN NAZISM DOESN'T REFUTE REAL ENVIRONMENTALISM

GREEN NAZISM DOESN'T REFUTE REAL ENVIRONMENTALISM

I've been posting a few comments over on InfoWars.com. I'm doing my best to not be taken for a thing people have come to call a "troll" on the Internet. InfoWars is a very passionate, emotional place and mixed-bag of ideologies. It's very liberal in the mundane sense what with the language allowed and so forth. It's trying to be liberal in the humanist Enlightenment sense while also attracting many professing various brands of Christianity among many other things. My comments have not been censored there. The leniency there is actually a hurdle because one must ignore much of the fruitless bickering (eyes of the beholder I'm sure some would think).

I've address two main things there so far: Jesus's pacifism, for one, and now environmentalism, per se, for another.

The following is a comment I left there June 18, 2009. I haven't been back since because I've been busy with other matters.

The people at InfoWars (those who support it's particular ideology that is Alex Jones's ideology) are 9/11 Truthers (those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by elitist crony capitalists with many socialistic bents but all bent on greater and greater consolidation of global power into fewer and fewer hands. It's not incorrect. However, along with those views, Alex and the others hold with an assortment of other platform planks if you will. Among them is the idea that environmentalism is a ploy and really a tool in the above mentioned conspiracy. Well, no doubt there are those within that conspiracy who do and will use environmental issues to further their ulterior prime objective.

What I've tried to do over there is to at least get them to pause a bit to consider that just as they do not like to be all lumped together with neo-Nazis for instance, so too environmentalists should not all be lumped together as evil New World Order minions and dupes. I say "evil" there not to say that the New World Order concept is inherently evil but to differentiate the one Alex and the others have in mind as opposed to the one Jesus is bringing.

By no means do I intend to act as an apologist for evil or the dark side, which does exist in the radical or root spiritual sense. I want the language to stop being devolved or being subjected to what has been termed "dumbing down."

Alex doesn't like the sound bites on other networks aimed against his constituents and him. Well, he needs to elevate up from using sound bites as a counter-offensive. That's not to say that there is never any in-depth analysis on Alex's site. There is. Some articles are very well written and thought provoking.

Anyway, I posted the following over on an article the just begged for my comment. I was truly moved to post it.

Let me also say that I am not an enemy of Alex Jones. I rather like him in many respects. He's too much the mammon-profit seeker for me and gun enthusiast (not for hunting but for "protection"), but I do often see in him a real concern for others regardless of race or ethnicity, etc. He's not a fascist. Although many of his followers avoid and, by doing so, downplay the ways in which the fascists use capitalism on and against Alex, et al., while they (Alex and the others) actually miss or, again, avoid the connections. In the interest of "let do" or laissez-faire capitalism, Alex allows many of the giant corporations to go unaddressed. He does go after them, but it's often indirectly by going after the secret societies and the governments and bureaucracies those corporations and those corporations' owners control.

Global warning is dismissed as a fake even while Exxon, the whole oil industry, and King Coal are the main culprits in air pollution regardless of CO2. So, "let do" allows monopolists to get just as far as they can (as others are willing to accept it and do business with them rather than doing something else at the risk of being attack by those corporatists).

Alex wants a so-called purist's capitalism. It's a psychological position he's advocating. If everyone who just "let the markets work" while respecting everyone else's freedom (a balancing act), everything would progress properly. That's the view in a nutshell. It sounds right until held up against Jesus's countervailing position that asks everyone to go further in understanding the meaning of the term "respect" along with the entire language. That's what this site is all about. You can readily see which view is the more popular right now. Consider the reasons. I don't fault Alex for it. He's not been exposed much to my type of thinking. He's been too convinced that everyone who disagrees is a shill, wittingly or unwittingly.

I am no shill. He knows that. I'm a problem. I'm a problem for everyone except God, Jesus, and myself, so far that I know of. There are those who have been more "tolerant" of me than have others. Some actually rather like the idea of the Christian Commons. Thomas James and Scott McQueen have both spoken up about it without hiding out or then disappearing never to be seen again.

God is going to conflate souls in the spirit of service based upon the consensus of the Holy Spirit within each, based upon a unity of and within congregations all over. This is no dictatorial, violent cult in the offing. There's no intention of standing off while people go hungry or thirsty or cold or homeless, etc. The Christian Commons Project is exactly the opposite thrust of selfishly standing off.

We also aren't desirous of doing "good" works to expand some worldly empire we envision. We aren't wanting converts so we may satisfy our lusts. Who's "we"? Yes, where are they? They have their faith in mammon. Look what's happened. There will be a recovery you think. What will be lost in that process? On balance, mammon always robs. It came out from the devouring spirit. The only thing to do with it is translate it into the Commons that has been robbed since mammon's invention or dump mammon all together, which will eventually happen.

Yes, I sound the alarm against greed, violence, and sexual harm in all forms including homosexual. Yes, I'm strict, but so too are God and Jesus. It doesn't mean a lack of love or compassion or sympathy or empathy, far from it. The strictness of God is the most freedom one can enjoy forever. It's the conscience within. God is conscience. God is many things — all good. God and Jesus didn't shrink from rebuking. I've been on the receiving end. I've come to love it. It's saving. There's no doubt about it. I want the gentle instruction too. I want it all. Yes, I want it all. I want to join. I believe Jesus when he said we can join/return. How can anyone calling himself a Christian not believe it? I don't want to take it away from anyone but to spread it and to share it. I'm no usurper. I'm not starting a new religion. I'm going home. I'm bringing it here.

Is it by faith, works, grace? Yes. So, if you have faith and believe in grace, then bring forth as Jesus said to do. Where's the church? Is it just building feel-good self-esteem while members love the worldly while brothers and sisters suffer for lack of the Commons? That's the lowercase church, the false. Don't imagine you can love capitalism and then just tithe. It doesn't work that way. Don't point me to the "good" works you brag of while you don't share all with the whole Church.

Bring forth the outward manifestation. Bring forth the tangible. Don't sit around quoting Paul as to why Jesus's words are a distraction. Don't try to rationalize away the fact that capitalism is antichrist. You either believe in giving and sharing and serving as Jesus said or you don't. If you believe it, you're not going to be a Christian capitalist. You may be working in the world that is ruled by Satan and is capitalist, but you're going to be a Christian anti-capitalist doing what you can to help peacefully to bring forth (return) the rightful inheritance of all that is the Commons.

Tom Usher Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

Hello All,

Jurriaan Maessen wrote, "It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control." The Nazis had many members. They didn't agree about everything. Can it be substantiated that none was an environmentalist for the sake of the health of the natural environment?

Perhaps Jurriaan means as a Party and not so much as individual members of the Party. I suspect it. The article's context suggests it. In addition, the notion of a genuine Party-concern for environmentalism is inconsistent with Germany's military industrialization and warfare, which contributed to great quantities of environmental pollution.

The quote also strongly suggests that the author views environmentalism for environmentalism's sake as at least not unworthy. The complaint concerns governmental coercion, especially when the motives are ulterior, and not environmentalism, per se. Therefore, within this comment thread, there are many libertarians who may disagree with Jurriaan.

I do not hold with coercing while I also do not hold with polluting.

Mercury in vaccinations has been roundly criticized on this site. There is mercury pollution largely from coal burning that has contaminated great quantities of the freshwater fish population in the U.S.

One is unreasonably selective to hate the mercury in vaccines [See also: "Frequently Asked Questions About Thimerosal (Ethylmercury)"] while having no issue with unbridled coal burning that as resulted in mercury poisoning of unsuspecting eaters of polluted fish.

Is the prevailing consensus on this site that no one should tell anyone else that burning coal presents health issues but everyone should speak out against the same toxicant in vaccines? That would be hypocritical on its face.

To avoid leaving the question of hypocrisy dangling, it would be an improvement were the clear distinction between environmentalism, per se, on one hand and using it as a pretext for evil ends on the other hand to be featured more prominently and with greater clarity.

There is nothing wrong with the right kind of environmentalism. The right kind of environmentalism is beautiful. It's consistent with the Golden Rule.

Peace and love

Jesus was the greatest environmentalist who has ever lived because he was the best teacher of the real understanding of the Golden Rule.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.