"Consider the man who stands by his duty and goes to the stake rather than be recreant to it" (Mark Twain).
By Rich Kozlovich
Originally published December 26, 2014, updated
March 28, 2016
The title of this article is based on a quote from Sir John Harington who said “Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason[?] "For if it prosper, none dare call it treason”.
It seems to me that Harington was explaining how important it is that treason must be defined and called to account for what it is in order to prevent the success of traitors. Because if their treason should proper - none can dare risk calling it treason any longer – that opportunity would have passed because the traitors are now in charge!
But what if everyone stood up and called treason for what it is? Would it prosper in the end? Possibly, but the first stepping stone to clarity is the ability to properly define what constitutes treason. Can we recognize treason when we see it? And that’s the key isn’t it? Defining treason – for without definition there’s no clarity, and there’s so much of it these days it’s hard to separate treason from opinion. Let’s explore this!
Normally we associate treason with “the betrayal of allegiance or acts of disloyalty or treachery toward one's own country or its government” in an “attempt to overthrow the government”, especially by "committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts”. It also involves efforts to “impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance”. But the very foundation of what constitutes treason reaches far beyond that. It’s a betrayal of trust, confidence or faith. We’ll expand on that later.
Treason is such an ugly word. It imputes so many ugly negative qualities to a person. It means being a collaborator with the enemies of one’s society, embodying qualities such as cowardice, disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, double crossing, being a sellout, knavery, a lack of fidelity and moral character. Traitors work against the common good of the people whose "habits, language and garb and common culture they share, while slyly working what is harmful to their associates," friends and even family.
Treason is an ugly word - but it fits for what it means to be green.
History is the fountain head of truth, and truth once spoken remains truth forever, we just have to keep making ourselves acquainted with it – regularly – or we forget what it is and can be easily swayed by every new philosophical flavor of the day! I’ve used this quote often in the past attrituted to Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 -43 BCE) , which is unendingly profound, even after 2000 years.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
Please notice I said this quote was "attributed" Cicero. Actually, Marcus Tullius Cicero probably never said that 2000 years ago. That "quote" is categorized as a "heavy paraphrase of Cicero" by "Florida Supreme Court Justice, Millard F. Caldwell, who spoke at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc on October 7-9, 1965 in Columbus, Ohio."
But so what?
Does it really matter if Cicero did say it 2000 years ago or someone else said it today? Would the time frame have made that statement any less profound? The question we should be concerned with is this: Can any crime be feared more?
People typically need some sort of intellectual justification to support and explain their actions, and yet often times the positions they take have nothing to do with intellectual reasoning. Very often they do what they do because it makes them feel good, or enhances their position in society. But what are the underlying forces the makes so many - from all over the world - want to embrace "going green”?
This is a multi-faceted problem requiring a multi-faceted answer.
There is a growing alliance between the media, the wealthy left, academia, environmental activists, activist bureaucrats, unscrupulous politicians and people who believe they can “do business” going green. Viv Forbes stated years ago saying:
"The public has been misled by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests."
This cabal has become a hegemony that’s linked to instruments of state power all over the world undermining the health and welfare of human societies with the theme “they’re saving the planet” and they're doing what they do because "it's for the children". When we hear those kinds of emotional appeals we had better start looking deeper into the subject because it probably means the intellectual foundations for their views are shallow.
Unfortunately for society this anti-human green hegemony is foundationally and functionally anti-job creation, anti-industrialization, anti-technology and absolutely opposed to economic growth, (the Keystone pipeline vote is one such example of the influence they exert) which they claim is a threat to the environment and a lifestyle they wish society of follow, i.e., a return to nature, which makes me wonder at their sanity. This puts them squarely at odds with working people and the most economically deprived people on the planet, especially in the third world where their policies and initiatives have had a devastating impact on their health and well being. Fortunately that’s becoming more and more clear thanks to the internet, but it’s important to understand what all that means.
The green movement’s foundation is firmly rooted with the nature worshipping religion of the Druids in the ancient dark mist covered forests of Germania. As Gary Jason pointed out in his article, Death by Environmentalism:
“I would suggest that there is a major strain of pagan or secularist religion, Gaea worship, that informs the movement. This strain of thought, a weird sort of neo-Romantic pantheistic nature cult, has been prevalent since Rousseau in the Enlightenment era, but it exploded throughout the culture in the 1960s. Not all environmentalists share this worldview, but it is the one that drives the movement. And it is one that often downplays the value of people — devalues them and, indeed, de-animates them. That is a topic I would love to see explored in depth.”
In the 1800’s German philosophers created an intellectual framework to explain all of this as “Weltanschauung”, which is a “comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it, or literally, world-view”. This ‘green’ world view became codified in Nazi Germany, the world’s first green government.
One the concepts that emerged from this is what is known as the Precautionary Principle.Sonja Boehmer Christiansen points out in the book, “Interpreting the Precautionary Principle”, “the precautionary principle evolved out of the German socio-legal tradition, created in the heyday of democratic socialism in the 1930’s, centering on the concept of good household management. This was regarded as a constructive partnership between the individual, the economy and the state to manage change so as to improve the lot of both society and the natural world upon which it depended for survival. This invested the precautionary principle with a managerial or programmable quality, a purposeful role in guiding future political and regulatory actions”.
What could sound more reasonable? The problem is –as always - in the application of these concepts. The Precautionary Principle is absolutely the structural foundation for every bit of junk science and speculatory challenge to modern economic advancement - whether it’s pesticides, genetically modified organisms, or the building of dams, roads, power plants, or mining and logging. There are a great many areas of the world where people are suffering from poverty so dire these efforts are the difference between living decent lives versus living in dystopia with disease, squalor, early death and a high rate of child mortality as their standard of life.
The green movement is filled with irrational, misanthropic and morally defective people like "population guru" Paul Ehrlich, who has a “not-so-hidden agenda of stopping people from having children,, viewing children as a kind of pollution”. The most moderate among them want to eliminate between four and five billion people from the planet. The “radicals” among them feel mankind is a virus and a plague on the planet and want humanity eliminated.
Forrest M. Mims III wrote about a speech at the Texas Academy of Science, where “the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner……many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker's remarks. If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one of their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science."
These “radicals” are never condemned by the rest of their cabal because they must represent a large and prominent minority.
“Walter Williams, the founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, Alexander King, wrote in 1990": “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guayana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
"Another charming quote comes from Dr. Charles Wurster, a leading opponent of DDT, who said of malaria deaths": “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any."
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
“Fact is, we all eat food, breathe air and require space, and the more of us there are, the less of those commodities there are for other people and, of course, for the animals.” Sir-David-Attenborough
"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome
“The present vast over population, now far beyond the world carrying capacity cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction in the numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary” -
Initiative for the United Nations, Eco 92 Earth Charter.
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!
Are all these statements about overpopulation and worldwide devastaton nothing more than insane misanthropy or are they justified? In the real world overpopulation is a myth! This view is also substantiated by Bjorn Lomborg in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist", Part 11.
Wendell Krossa’s article Crimes Against Life, states the following: “Based on numerous empirical studies,(actually observable, not models) the 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 content over the past 150 years has increased mean crop yields by the following amounts: wheat, 60 percent; other C3 cereals, 70 percent; C4 cereals, 28 percent; fruits and melons, 33 percent; legumes, 62 percent; root and tuber crops, 67 percent; and vegetables, 51 percent."
“Were it not for the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion, either many people now living would not exist, or many forests now standing would have been cleared and turned into farmland—or both. CO2 emissions are literally greening the planet, enhancing biodiversity and global food availability. Continuing CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere will be necessary to feed a global population expected to increase by 3.3 billion over the next 50 years—and limit pressures to convert forests and wetlands into cropland.”
Yet we see the green movement staunchly defending their Anthropogenic Global Warming position that the world is doomed if we don’t “act now” and get rid of all CO2 emissions. Virtually ending modern life. They continue to cling to the global warming litany despite the fact that the world stopped warming officially 18 years ago, and all the computer model predictions are failing or have failed, and the Hockey Stick Graph has been shown so flawed it's considered fraudulent by a growing number. Yet the green movement wants the world to abandon a culture that has caused more people to live healthier longer lives than ever in history, in favor of dystopia.
The Global Warming movement is a religious movement without God. It’s a religion of death whose proponents have been successful in “creating a suicide cult, which — if followed to its logical conclusion — will lead to human extinction. Ultimately, the Global Warming crusade is a frontal assault on procreation, the family and the future of mankind.”
How can this be construed as anything except a “betrayal of trust or faith" that’s nothing short of disloyalty to humanity, which supports impairing the well-being of the societies to which they belong. How can this be construed as anything except treachery in support of treason?
There really is good and evil in the world. There really is such a thing as right and wrong. We need to come full face with the fact there are some very real bad guys out there. They’re not boogey men hiding under the bed that will go away when you cover your head with a blanket. Throughout human history bad guys have devastated whole societies all over the world, and they were all totalitarians of one sort of another. They’re weren’t “just wrong”, they really were, and are, evil human beings who were more than willing to sacrifice untold millions to paganism or the neo-pagan secular religions of socialism and it's stepchild - environmentalism. The green movement is an evil totalitarian movement that perpetrates mass murder, and when you side with them you become an enabler of mass murder. That’s history. Those are the facts, and those facts are are incontestable.
If you think going green gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness – get over it because you’re dancing with the Devil and when you dance with the Devil, you won’t call the tune, you won’t pick the dance and you may not be able to leave the dance floor. And you will be party to treason - not to any government - but to the human family itself. A family to which we're all a part. A family we owe loyalty to from birth.
Government officials take an oath in the United State to "support and defend the Constitution", which means supporting the concepts as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are the logical foundation of our "unalienable rights".
Everything the green movement stands for is antithetical to those rights and concepts and any public official supporting the green movement is guilty of treason against this nation, and against humanity, and if public officials are guilty of treason for supporting this movement can we be any less culpable?