By Chuck Diaz
In Germany, Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party introduced a new way of controlling human behavior. Maybe it wasn’t new maybe it was. But it did work. They introduced a common enemy to the German people so they could vent their anger and blame someone or something for their problems. As a result, the Jewish people became scapegoats for the Nazi’s.
Without labeling anyone a Nazi or any organization Nazi like, the tactics used have survived the war and are being used today on all of the people of the world. To simplify the argument I will select a perceived problem, a cause of the problem or the scapegoat, and a solution that is being used today by the Greens.
Any student of Green philosophy understands the bottom line agenda for the Green movement is world population reduction under the rule of a socialistic one world model. As Dr. George Reisman stated in his book, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, so well was, “What the environmentalists are actually afraid of is not that the planet or its ability to support life will be destroyed, but that the increase in its ability to support human life will destroy its still extensively existing wildness.”
First, what is the problem? From the Greens point of view it’s the fact that we have too many people with too much freedom. Yet today the world is feeding more people than ever before in the history of mankind. In America between 1940 and 1980 the output of the 17 most important food, feed and fiber crops increased from 252 million metric tons to 610 million metric tons. With an increase in cultivated area of only 3%. There are many factors that led to the increase, including an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the main thrust was our science and technology.
That science and technology included the creation of the many pesticides used today to combat the natural enemies of plant growth like diseases and pests. If an increase in our food supply can be reversed, the quickest way is to eliminate the use of the technology. So the Greens have identified one of the causes of the problem as pesticides.
To turn pesticides into the scapegoat they have to convince the masses that the use of pesticides is more harmful to the people than its use. By adding the fear of cancer as the reason for the elimination of pesticides, they are on their way to destroying our ability to produce enough food. To do this, and not appear as liars, they had to accomplish one thing.
They had to change an attitude in science that has been a foundation since science has been science. That was, “The dose determines the poison.” It has long been accepted that all things in life are poison, only the dose makes it poison to a human. With the advent of superior methods of measuring quantities in smaller and smaller quantities, the Greens had what they needed to complete their mission.
Measuring a substance in parts per million, billion or trillion was unheard of just a few years ago. But today it is commonplace. Now if you turn your back on “The dose determines the poison,” a given substance in any amount can be claimed as cancer causing if you can get it to cause cancer.
In the early sixties the method of injecting laboratory mice or rats with mass doses of substances became the newly accepted way of determining what might cause cancer in humans. In the case of the alar scare of 1990, laboratory rats were injected with doses equal to a human eating 28,000 pounds of apples for seventy years before tumors appeared. Now they could say that alar residue was known to cause cancer in lab rats without lying. What they didn’t tell you is that when they cut the dosage in half, equal to a human eating 14,000 pounds of apples a day for seventy years, there were no tumors.
One of the leading scientists today in cancer research, Dr. Bruce Ames states that the tumors are actually caused by the tissue breakdown due to the massive amounts used in the testing. According to Dr. Ames, humans eat an estimated 1500 milligrams of natural pesticides per day. Natural pesticides are those that nature creates in plants and vegetables on its own. The figure 1500 milligrams per day is 10,000 times greater than what we consume in synthetic, (man made) pesticides.
So why all the fuss over man made pesticides’? As far as the Greens are concerned they are the ones that increase the food production so they have to go. They will continue their con by saying things like, over time the pesticides will build up in our food chain and our bodies and we’ll all die. It’s all bunk! If it were true, what about natures pesticides? The Greens seem to want to differentiate between a man made pesticide and a natural pesticide and that doesn’t hold water.
Consider this scientific statement:
One cup of coffee contains 10 milligrams of known natural carcinogens, about equivalent in weight to the potentially carcinogenic synthetic pesticide residues one eats in a year.
One cup of coffee has as many natural cancer-causing chemicals as an average American consumes in one year of ALL man made cancer causing pesticide residues.
Question: Why haven’t the Greens tried to have coffee banned? Why? Because it would expose their scam.
Consider the label on a package of Sweet ‘N Low:
“Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals. “
To accomplish this they gave the lab rats the equivalent of a human drinking 800 cans of diet soda a day for the duration of the test. I wonder what happened when they only gave them the equivalent of 400 cans a day? The label of “hazardous to your health” has since been lifted.
The bottom line is, their scam is working and the American people are being duped into believing this false science. What’s worse is, the American people are also paying to be duped either by direct contributions to the Greens or by the corporate grants to the Greens, which are created from profits made from higher prices, or by more government regulation. In 1992 EPA regulations alone cost America an estimated $130 billion. All this at a time when we should be cutting the deficit by cutting EPA.
And finally, the National Resource Defense Council, (very Green) won a federal court decision that will most likely remove 35 more chemicals from the market. They’re winning and you’re paying for it.
This article was first published in Speak Up America in 1993
Copyright © 2003 SUANews
All Rights Reserved