Rachel Carson: Whore of Babylon

by Janet G. West

[Print version of this article]

Nov. 20—In the 56 years since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published, we have seen one canard after another perpetrated by the Greenies: the “danger” of DDT, acid rain, oil “shortages,” the greenhouse effect, global cooling, the “ozone hole,” global warming, and on, and on, and on. Not one of these “crises” has ever been an actual threat to humanity. Not one.

Since the publication of Silent Spring, we have lived through almost six decades of nothing less than lying Malthusian propaganda, and today the axioms of this anti-scientific fraud are hegemonic within ruling institutions, as witnessed in the proceedings of the November 2018 conference of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “The Earth must be Saved” and “Mankind is a Pestilence” are the rallying cries spewed out for the credulous. This anti-human venom can all be traced back to the 1962 publication of Silent Spring and to its author, Rachel Carson.

The publication and circulation of Silent Spring was promoted from the highest levels of the liberal media, a promotion which included vast publicity and endless speaking engagements for Carson. The end result of this was that, in 1972, the pesticide DDT was banned in the United States.

The cost to humanity from the banning of DDT has been enormous. According to UNICEF, malaria kills a child every 30 seconds. Over one million people die from malaria annually, and they are mostly children. Extending that figure linearly since the banning of DDT in 1972, about 46 million people have died, although it could be more. These are all preventable deaths.

Compare these figures to the appalling genocide under the Nazis, in which, over the two-year period that the Auschwitz concentration camp existed, an estimated 1.1 million people were murdered. The banning of DDT has killed—and continues to kill—every year, roughly the total death toll at Auschwitz.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly half of the world’s population is at risk of contracting malaria. Adding to that figure the millions who have perished due to lack of energy resources, and lack of adequate technology and infrastructure (such as sanitary living conditions, refrigeration and hospitals), one can fairly say that the toleration and implementation of so-called “environmental” regulations has killed far more than 100 million people.

The responsibility for this devastation must be placed squarely on the shoulders of Rachel Carson—whose Silent Spring preceded the first “Earth Day” by eight years, and who is still today considered to be a key founder of the modern environmentalist movement—as well as with the thousands of witting fools who have participated in promoting this genocide.

‘Something Wicked This Way Comes . . .’

Long before Silent Spring was even a canker in Carson’s brain, some thirteen gardeners in the area of Long Island, New York brought an injunction in the District Court in May 1957, in an attempt to stop the U.S. government from spraying the area with DDT to eradicate a massive infestation of the gypsy moth (which was affecting nine northeastern states). In May 1958, one of them, knowing that Carson had written some “warm ’n fuzzy” books about ocean ecology and was already a best-selling author, contacted her and began supplying her with boxes of research papers, files and contacts from the case. They began a four-year collaboration and correspondence regarding the court case, with the intent of stopping the spraying of DDT.

The key woman involved was Marjorie Spock, younger sister of Dr. Benjamin Spock (who was the pediatrician of Margaret Mead’s family, among other things). She and several of her local fellow gardeners were members of the Anthroposophical Society in America (ASA), which promoted gardening of fruits and vegetables, and raising farm animals without pesticides, antibiotics or hormones. They asserted that the spraying of DDT would result in a “total loss” of their products, due to “contamination.”

The ASA had also established its own community farm, and called its method of farming (without pesticides or hormones) “biodynamics”—later termed “organic gardening” by J.I. Rodale, another sympathizer with the ASA. The ASA was based on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner. Earlier, Steiner had served as the general secretary of the Theosophy Society in Germany, at that time led by Annie Besant.

The Theosophical Society was spawned in 1875 in New York City by hash addict Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, born in Ukraine, herself a self-proclaimed spiritualist and occultist. Theosophy was Satan-worship with a thin veneer as an “esoteric religion” that promoted the “Ancient Wisdom.”

Blavatsky wrote such books as Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, and the Theosophical Society’s journal was called Lucifer. When she died, the leadership of the society passed to Annie Besant (co-founder of the British Fabian Society) and Rudolf Steiner. Steiner would go on to found the Anthroposophical Society in America.

Another fellow-traveler from earlier times who contributed to Carson’s worldview was John Muir (1838-1914) who, in addition to being an avowed white-supremacist, founded the Sierra Club. Today, he is hailed as a key initiator of the modern Greenie movement. Muir was a devoted admirer of the New England Transcendentalists, and heaped fulsome praise on Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and others. In her private letters, Rachel Carson quotes from Muir in a tone of near devotion.

Briefly, the Transcendentalists and their successors believe that human beings exist as “pure and independent” beings, as if we were hatched out of eggs, without the benefit of 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian culture; without the benefits of technology and industry; without the benefits of government institutions that protect individual rights. They believe in “pure” human beings, uncorrupted by education, religion, or science—and they believe that nature alone is divine.

Besides Emerson and Thoreau, we find Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), David Hume (1711-1776), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), among others, in this Liberal/Romantic tradition.

Lyndon H. LaRouche explains the connection between such liberalism and fascism:

The Liberal system of government, economy, and social philosophy is chiefly a copy of the financier-oligarchy-ruled maritime power of Venice’s former imperial hey-days. Under the influence of Venice’s powerful Paolo Sarpi and his successors, the Venetian model of financier-oligarchy-managed liberalism was imposed upon two emerging imperial maritime powers in northern Europe—the England of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke; and the Netherlands of William of Orange and the radical empiricist Bernard Mandeville. The philosophical liberalism reigning within the society was complemented by a thrust toward that relatively global maritime supremacy consistent with the adopted self-interest of the financier-oligarchical class as both merchant and usurer.

The crucial feature of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model which was thus essentially consolidated in conception over the course of the Eighteenth Century, is the relative independence from elected government, enjoyed by a privately controlled central banking system. In effect, that central banking system is the agent of the collective assembly-in-fact of the society’s financier-oligarchical class.

During the interval from approximately 1763 to 1945, the chief challenge to the power of the Liberal model within extended European civilization was first expressed in wide support, among Europeans, for the struggle for independence of the English colonies in North America. Over the course of the 1763-1789 interval, the shaping of the emerging American constitutional republic produced a Constitution whose Preamble represented the intellectual triumph of the leading U.S. patriots, who reflected the influence of Gottfried Leibniz over that of John Locke. Even today, despite the success of Britain’s Edward VII in foisting what became the Federal Reserve System on the U.S.A., the American System of political-economy, as described by Franklin, Hamilton, the Careys, Friedrich List, et al., is based on a principle of the authority of constitutional national banking—over that of any foreign power, or domestic financier-oligarchy—in matters of monetary and financial regulation.

. . . [L]ook at the way in which a concert of Anglo-American financier-oligarchical power led by Britain’s Montagu Norman, using Norman’s asset Hjalmar Schacht, et al., imposed Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship on Germany. The “independent central banking” interest, so expressed, put Hitler into power, both to prevent a Franklin Roosevelt-like option in Chancellor von Schleicher’s Germany, and to arm Germany for a world war intended to destroy both Germany and Russia.[fn_1]

The Opening Salvo

In June 1958, Marjorie Spock, et al., went to trial in District Court on Long Island. Over the next 22 days, testimony was taken from 50 witnesses. A key witness was Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, who was a leading proponent of the ASA and biodynamic agriculture, and was close to Rachel Carson.

The case was dismissed, and the ruling was that no damages were proven. In 1959, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the original decision was upheld. It was then appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, and was again denied. A dissenting opinion was filed by Justice William O. Douglas, who was well-known for his pro-Greenie views. He was not only an admirer of Muir, Carson, and other Greenies, but wrote a glowing review of Silent Spring—having received a proof copy from Carson. Douglas also served on the board of directors of John Muir’s Sierra Club in 1961-62.

In 1972 Douglas was involved in another court case, one which has had profound repercussions down to the present day. Justice Douglas wrote one of the dissenting opinions in the famous case of Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), in which the Sierra Club sought to block the development of a ski resort in Mineral King Valley. The lawsuit was rejected by the Supreme Court, because the Sierra Club had not alleged any injury. Normally, a person has standing to seek judicial review only if he can show that he himself has suffered or will suffer injury, whether economic or otherwise. When a petitioner cannot assert such individualized harm, he or she lacks standing to maintain the action.

Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion, asserted that “trees have standing”:

The critical question of “standing” would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. See Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972). This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.

Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. . . .

So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life . . .The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.[fn_2] [emphasis added]

The conscious aim of this infamous court case wasn’t to simply win a decision, but to set a precedent which still plagues the U.S. today, namely that businesses or individuals who wish to transform a tract of land (development, mining, spraying, etc.) must now file costly impact studies—before proceeding—proving that they are not “harming” the land, or any part of it.

During these various court cases, the contact between Marjorie Spock and Rachel Carson continued, and Spock continued to pass along papers, references and documents, repeatedly appealing to Carson to write a book to shut down the use of DDT. Carson finally agreed and began writing Silent Spring. Thus did the “research material” and other “resources” condemning DDT come to Carson by way of kooks and Satanists.

Once the book was set to be published, Carson cut all contact with Spock and other anthroposophists, and made no acknowledgement of their collaboration, so as to distance herself and the book from outright loonies. By June 1962, Silent Spring was serialized in The New Yorker magazine. It was published as a book in September, and was then promoted by the popular Book-of-the-Month Club, quickly becoming a best-seller. It was also promoted by the New York Times, serialized in Audubon Magazine, and made the subject of a “CBS Reports” television special. It received overwhelmingly positive reviews. Carson also received numerous invitations for speaking engagements and testified before both President John F. Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee and a U.S. Senate subcommittee.

Actual scientists, biologists and researchers voiced strenuous opposition to Carson’s poorly researched, kooky views. Among the many who spoke out at that time were Robert H. White-Stevens and Thomas Jukes (who later collaborated with the Fusion Energy Foundation, of which Lyndon LaRouche was a founder, in writing articles against Carson). In the “CBS Reports” broadcast referenced above, White-Stevens asserted,

If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.[fn_3]

Thomas Jukes—a British-American biologist who had been a professor of biophysics at the University of California—fought tirelessly against Carson. However, despite these interventions, the liberal establishment quickly moved to silence and ostracize any serious opposition to Carson.

In 1972, DDT was banned, first in the U.S. by a ruling of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and subsequently in many other countries.

Fairies and Fauns: Down & Dirty in Your Flower Bed

What are the ideological beliefs that serve as the bedrock for Silent Spring? What is “biodynamics”? What makes the anthroposophs tick? And who, exactly, was Marjorie Spock?

Spock wrote several books. According to an account of her life[fn_4] by William Jens Jenkins:

Marjorie Spock’s most popular book these days is Fairy Worlds and Workers. It is a sensitive, imaginative exploration of nature’s inner beings—its Little People, the elementals, the Middle Kingdom. She says that her feeling for the natural world of fairies arose not clairvoyantly but from her connection with the earth as a farmer and gardener. That feeling is an ability to read certain signs of nature and to hear what it is asking for.

As for the anthroposophs, the Helen Hecker Santa Barbara Group, a modern anthroposophic group on the West Coast, posts on its website:

Activity for September 29:

Michaelmas falls near the equinox, the beginning of autumn and the shortening of days. We gather inner strength from summer’s warmth to meet the challenge of the darkness and cold ahead . . .

December 26 — January 6

The winter solstice can be a wonderful time for contemplation and inner reflection. In preparation for the coming year’s journey around the sun, we will read [writings by Rudolf Steiner] for 12 nights. Each night represents one month of the year and a constellation of the zodiac.

The website for the Biodynamics Association explains:

Biodynamics is rooted in the work of philosopher and scientist Dr. Rudolf Steiner, whose 1924 lectures to farmers opened a new way to integrate scientific understanding with a recognition of spirit in nature.

Biodynamic farmers and gardeners observe the rhythms and cycles of the earth, sun, moon, stars, and planets and seek to understand the subtle ways that the environment and wider cosmos influences the growth and development of plants and animals.

Biodynamic agriculture invites us to develop a conscious and creative conversation with nature. By observing, sensing, and listening to the land, we develop intimate relationships with our unique farm organisms and expand our capacities for perception, reflection, and imagination.

If all of this is not bad enough, a new type of sexuality is being promoted by these kooks. They call it “eco-sexual”—yes, literally to have sex with the Earth, rolling around in the mud, or getting intimate with a tree. Nuptials are even celebrated by these wackos, “marrying” the earth, moon or other entities. These perverts assert that the best way to overcome Al Gore’s depressing prognostications, and to take the environmental crisis seriously, is to treat the earth as a lover, especially to avoid upsetting her. Yes, they really do believe that “Mother Earth” is a living being.

Life is Hard, Harder if You’re Stupid

The title of the book itself, Silent Spring, comes from the opening chapter in which Carson paints an idyllic scene of lush meadows, “prosperous farms . . . and hillsides of orchards,” as if all of this popped out of the ground yesterday, with no notion of the long history of agriculture. She goes on to describe colorful varieties of wildflowers, insects, birds, clear babbling brooks, and so forth. Then, a blight strikes the fields and the land, silencing the animals and the birds, especially the robin—the herald of spring—hence, Silent Spring.

Carson neglects to take note of the tiny detail that the robin is the most populous of birds in America, and has never been endangered. She also fails to observe that prosperous farms exist only as a result of man’s intervention over thousands of years to improve the land, develop seed, implement water management, and use advanced technologies to assist in care of the crops.

Carson is either a deliberate liar or grossly incompetent in basic matters of both history and science. Her preconceived argument is simply that man is on par with the animals—just one creature in the “web of life.” From an epistemological standpoint, any “study” that has the axiomatic assumption that “animals are equal to humans” is incompetent on the face of it, no matter how many “facts” are produced to support a viewpoint—because the true nature of Man sets him above and apart from the beasts.

Much of what Carson wrote in Silent Spring has been thoroughly and expertly refuted by the late entomologist, J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D. (1919-2004). References to his work will be provided at the end of this article. A small sample will show how Silent Spring is laced with outrageous lies, innuendos and “guilt by association.”

For example, Carson groups DDT with a family of related insecticides, although these vary greatly as to their degree of toxicity to humans. To illustrate her method of argument, take a very real poison, the berry of belladonna, which is the species called “deadly nightshade,” of the nightshade family. Using Carson’s type of “logic,” one would label such “scary” vegetables as tomatoes, potatoes and eggplant as “deadly,” because all of them are also members of the nightshade family.

Having been a best-selling author before writing Silent Spring, she was familiar with the use of words for effect, and her persistent use of strong adjectives paired with DDT or other insecticides is noticeable in her effort to alarm and create an emotional, rather than intellectual response to her writing. Phrases such as “elixirs of death,” “sinister features of DDT,” “pools of poison,” and “rain of chemicals,” used ad nauseum, begin to give one the uneasy feeling of being in the presence of someone who is clinically insane.

Her frequent pairing of DDT with “radiation fall-out” to imply that there was also constant radiation fall-out from nuclear testing was a transparent deceit. She uses the words, “radiation” or “radioactive materials” several times (in a book supposedly about DDT)—a not-so-subtle attempt to create an association between what must have been a vivid image in 1962 (the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis) of the horrific mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb, and DDT, as well as other insecticides.

Here is a sampling of a few quotes:

In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world. . . .

Some would-be architects of our future look forward to a time when it will be possible to alter the human germ plasm by design. But we may be easily doing so by inadvertence, for many chemicals, like radiation, bring about gene mutations.

The pollution entering our waterways comes from many sources: radioactive wastes from reactors, laboratories, and hospitals; fallout from nuclear explosions; domestic wastes from cities and towns; chemical wastes from factories. To these is added a new kind of fallout—the chemical sprays applied to croplands. . . .

Toward the beginning of the book, she makes the incredibly ignorant assertion that, “. . . Under primitive agricultural conditions, the farmer had few insect problems.” Currently, it is estimated that arthropods destroy up to 26 percent of annual crop production worldwide. If all types of disease and other pests are included, the losses jump to 40 percent. Without modern agricultural technology (such as hybrid seeds and state-of-the-art chemicals, such as DDT and fertilizers), that figure would rise to 80 percent or higher.

She even belittles farmers, stating, “The farmer himself seldom understands the value of wild bees. . . .” In reality, it is universally recognized by everyone involved in agriculture (or even in a backyard garden) that bees are essential for pollination, especially of fruit trees. At the same time, even the EPA has confirmed that DDT is not toxic to honeybees.

Did you know that the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?

What’s Natural about Mankind

What is “natural” is for mankind to transform the Universe through his creativity, to achieve higher and higher energy throughput and energy-flux density, and to support an increasing potential relative population density for the human species. This has been the dynamic of all human development, and it defines the “natural” state of the human condition.

Individual discoveries of principle are disseminated throughout society and transform it. The human mind is unique among all living species in the way it transforms the biosphere. In an article discussing the science of physical economy, Lyndon LaRouche writes:

The significance of very small margins of difference, is shown most dramatically, by the argument of Vernadsky for the biosphere. The development of the atmosphere, oceans, and so on, by the action of life, over billions of years, corresponds to a major change in the non-living planet, through the cumulative, marginally small, momentary action of life as a universal physical principle. To make clear the significance of the term “universal physical principle,” as the empirical evidence of biogeochemistry attests, we must recognize that life, as a category of universal physical principle, is characterized by its expression of an intention which we recognize as making the difference between living and non-living forms of organization.

The actions of human cognition, over millions of years, resulting in the emergence of major changes in the biosphere, include the development of the biosphere to a degree not possible without the cumulative, momentarily tiny, but nonetheless efficient effects of cognitive action. The principle of cognition, like the categorical principle of life, similarly, expresses an intention, an intention which is otherwise identified by a strict use of the term reason. . . .

In Vernadsky’s noösphere, as in the Platonic universe known to the experimental work of Kepler, there are three multiply-connected categories of universal physical principle: a.) non-living; b.) living (biosphere); and, c.) cognitive noëtic. All three, taken together, are multiply-connected, in Riemann’s usage of that notion; all three are equally existent “from the beginning” of the universe so defined. The three, combined as a Riemannian-style multiply-connected manifold, represent a noösphere. My contribution to this configuration, is defining the composition of the sub-manifold of universal cognitive principles. That latter sub-manifold constitutes a category of universal physical principles, so defined experimentally because its efficient existence is expressed as physical effects which are intentionally products of its action. The noösphere subsumed by cognitive action, is the experimental domain corresponding, as subject, to the science of physical economy. . . .

When we today, following Kepler, use the term intention as a synonym for the concept of the Leibniz calculus, we are using intention as synonymous with Mind. . . .

In Kepler’s work, Mind and intention are qualities which the cognitive powers of the human mind are able to recognize, as what we may rightly term universal physical principles. Man recognizes that distinct quality of Mind, and that corresponding intention, as underlying certain distinctive qualities of trajectories. The scientist employs such use of the terms Mind, intention, and universal physical principles, as of the same set of metaphorical notions, because the cognitive power of the human is able to recognize the Mind and intention expressed by a Keplerian orbit, as the intention of a universal Being of a nature It shares with the individual human cognitive personality. That image, of the Creator as made in the cognitive image of man, is the mirror-reflection, for the scientist, of man as developed by the universe, uniquely, in the image of the Creator, that according to the intention of that Creator.[fn_5]

Climate change is normal—ever hear of an Ice Age? Transformation and improvement of animal and plant species by mankind is normal. Improvement of living standards is normal. Extinction of species on a regular basis is normal.

Several years ago, members of the LaRouche youth movement presented material which hypothesized that with each new mass extinction event, although a large percentage of the species at that time were wiped out, the development of the biosphere responded with not only an increased number of species, but increased differentiation, leading to an overall increased energy throughput (anti-entropy) and increased energy-flux density.[fn_6] Anti-entropic development is a normal characteristic of both our biosphere and the universe at large. Contrariwise, “sustainable development”—as proposed by the Greenie freaks—and practices such as “recycling” are entropic processes which violate natural anti-entropic evolution.

Why do we recycle paper? Isn’t that insane? The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the U.S. Forest Service engages in a continual census of the status of forests and availability of growing stock for our needs, and they’ve determined that the South of the U.S. alone provides 60 percent of the nation’s paper needs, and that figure is only three percent of the total forest available in that region! Growing stock has remained stable since the 1950s. Since when are trees not “renewable”?

“Recycling” in many cases costs more that it does to produce new goods, and undermines the capability to sustain people at modern standards of living. There is no such thing as a “static system,” no “balance of Nature”—either there is development upwards, or species die. The argument for “a balance of nature” or “survival of the fittest” is simply a ruse for pushing “supply/demand economics” (the City of London’s Invisible Hand that is lifting your wallet).

There is also no such thing as “natural resources” in the common usage of that term. Resources are conceived of and developed by mankind. For tens of millennia, a rock was just a rock; but then, out of the mind of man, an idea sprang, like Athena fully formed, and an ore was created. Copper was the first metal to be used by man, since it can occur in nature in a directly usable form, but copper was nothing until a human individual used his (or her) innate insight and creativity to fashion copper into a tool. (Not to mention the fact that all mineral elements on Earth—and in our bodies—ultimately came from either the thermonuclear fusion processes of our Sun directly, or from the remnants of supernovae.)

This publication recently featured a major article discussing what it means to be human, spanning the history of the mastery of fire, tools, more advanced technology and the development of civilization.[fn_7] Mankind transformed fruits and vegetables, such as corn, tomatoes, bananas and others, and improved breeding stock of domesticated animals through animal husbandry. From the dawn of time, mankind has transformed his environment through his unique creative powers of discovery. The earliest proof of the use of human tools goes back 3.4 million years (fractured and cut fossil bones with marks from butchery found near Dikika, Ethiopia); ornamentation and jewelry often are seen hand-in-hand with utilitarian objects, and date back 135,000 years. The earliest cave paintings date to 40,000 years ago, and the first known musical instrument (a flute carved from bone) was made by human hands 35,000 years ago.

For example, take what appears on the surface to be deceptively simple: the creation of knapped stone tools. To create such a tool, the toolmaker has to know what sort of rocks are suitable (time and labor were at a premium), such as flint, chalcedony, quartzite and obsidian. It also requires knowledge and manual skill—like that of a lapidarist—to strike the cleavage planes so as to make the most effective use of the rock, and of the craftsman’s time. All of this implies sophisticated creative mental processes, manual dexterity, socialization, and an economy that allows leisure time in order to be creative.

Across the eons, the biosphere developed in nonlinear and anti-entropic ways, such that as the Earth cooled, the climate began to change, and bands of increasingly differentiated areas, such as the tropics, began to take shape. During the Great Oxygenation Event of 2.45 billion years ago, there was an explosion of the number and diversification of minerals.

Present estimates indicate that there are about 9 million species of living creatures (plants and animals) on our planet. There are no limits to growth, and no limits as to how mankind can transform his environment to increase the energy-flux density of Earth and beyond. Mankind participates with the Creator in an ongoing creation.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters

Ample research and scientific evidence shows that DDT poses no danger to humans. No one has ever been harmed by it. Yet, not only does DDT continue to be banned, but “environmentalism” now seems to be as deeply embedded in Western culture as a screwworm can burrow into living flesh.

The real issue is collapse in moral outlook within the trans-Atlantic population. Greenies are only given credence due to the increased irrationality and cultural pessimism of our people (“popular opinion”). In earlier times such occultists were rightly ridiculed and scoffed at. “Environmentalism” is part of a larger cultural assault on the American people, one that began with the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. Can any rational person deny that we shifted from a paradigm of hope into one of pessimism? And, far from environmentalism being a “grassroots” movement, this publication and the Fusion Energy Foundation have documented that virtually all of the leading Greenie organizations are largely bankrolled by the likes of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Gund Foundation and other funds of the financial elite.

If entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are accepted as true, then there is no future! Why is there such a proliferation—especially in recent years—of television, online and other programs dealing in the occult, magic, witchcraft, the supernatural, vampires, the paranormal, hunting ghosts, zombies, “ghost tours,” and so forth? Why are these shows so popular? Why would anyone in his right mind read his “horoscope”? Why does your neighbor speak of such matters in hushed tones, expressing the belief that “there might be something to it, you know”? Why do so many dabble in the occult—Ouija/spirit boards, tarot cards, mediums, fortune tellers, ad nauseum?

It is enslavement more powerful than chains—to kowtow to pagan beliefs creates a passive master-slave relationship between the world and oneself, rather than a loving parent-child relationship which leads to mastery of the Universe and increased creativity. It denies the role of Reason and the Free Will—that mankind not only was created in the Living Image of God (Imago Viva Dei), but also—as the great Church Father St. Augustine of Hippo asserted—that mankind participates with the Creator (Capax Dei): “The mind is the image of God, in that it is capable of Him and can be partaker of Him.”

These are principles that are common to mankind; different religions may express them differently, but the individual beliefs are still congruent with this principle, recognizing the preeminence of the sanctity of human life.

In the vile, satanic Theosophical roots of modern “environmentalism” we may discern the true sickness, which goes far deeper than merely worshiping a tree. Clearly, rational arguments won’t change the thinking of Greenies; they are in the embrace of an ideology. You can not insult them by calling them “pagan” or “satanic”; for they are like conversos to a new religion, one which views Man the Creator as an enemy. They have no intention to solve any of the actual problems which face mankind within the biosphere or the Solar system. Their only true intent is to kill billions of people.

Look at the nefarious “popular” authors studied in schools today—such as Aldous Huxley (“. . . most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.”—Brave New World), George Orwell (“four legs good—two legs bad!”—Animal Farm), William Golding (“Maybe there is a beast. . . . Maybe it’s only us.”—Lord of the Flies), and H.G. Wells (“ ‘Are we not men?’ said the Ape-Man”—The Island of Doctor Moreau), among others. They are only too happy to convince you that man’s “true nature” is bestial, destructive and tyrannical. In their kind of world, the philosophy of the Nazis that “all is allowed” prevails—all manner of perversion and excess of the appetites is allowed. This is their “natural man.”

“All is allowed”—all, that is, except for Agapē, the love of mankind which has sustained our progress as a species from our genesis. No animal has a sense of the Beautiful, of the Sublime, or of Aesthetics. Look at the reality of human progress: even when man’s life expectancy was estimated to be only in the range of 25 years, still, without our agapic regard for the next generation, including the development and improvement of the land, animals and plants to benefit all, it were doubtful that the human race would have survived.

A noble and beautiful perspective on man’s true nature is expressed in Friedrich Schiller’s poem, The Artists. The reader is encouraged to read the entire poem.[fn_8]

 

How fair, O Man, do you, your palm branch holding

Stand at the century’s unfolding

In proud and noble manhood’s prime

With faculties revealed, with spirit’s fullness

Full earnest mild, in action-wealthy stillness,

The ripest son of time,

Free through reason, strong through law’s measure,

Through meekness great, and rich in treasure,

Which long your breast to you did not disclose,

Nature’s own lord, she glories in your bridle,

Who in a thousand fights assays your mettle

And shining under you from out the wild arose!

 . . . .

Emerged from humble clay, from stoney traces,

Creative Art, with peaceful victories embraces

The mind’s unmeasured, vast domain.

What but discoverers in knowledge’s high places

Can conquer, did for you its conquest gain.

The treasures which the thinker has collected

Will only in your arms first warm his heart,

When science is, by beauty ripened and perfected,

Ennobled to a work of art—

When he up to the hilltop with you sallies

And to his eye, in evening’s shining part,

Is suddenly revealed—the lovely valleys . . .

 

This is the authentic nature of Man to which we can aspire. We were born to “bring forth the better.”

The True Cost to Civilization

Although it is doubtful that Adolf Hitler was a true vegetarian, it is commonly understood that he had concerns for animal welfare and the environment. In 1933, the Nazis passed laws regulating the slaughter of animals, and Hermann Goering announced there would be an end to the “unbearable torture and suffering” in experiments on animals. Additionally, Nazi propaganda from the 1930s, which put forward a vision of the new “thousand-year Reich,” is blatantly Greenie in its views of primaeval nature and the German Volksgeist.

The dirty secret is that if you scratch a Greenie you get a Nazi, and vice versa. A key component of today’s Greenie mindset—already seen in the Transcendentalists, as well as in Silent Spring—is that mankind is a pestilence, that the Judeo-Christian western tradition has inflicted murderous harm on Mother Earth, harm which can be traced all the way back to the Command in the Book of Genesis “be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over the Earth and subdue it.”

This is what Adolph Hitler said:

Christianity [is] a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.

—Adolf Hitler [fn_9]

Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject.

—Adolf Hitler[fn_10]

In July 1933, the Nazis implemented their pagan belief in “survival of the fittest,” by enacting the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases” (such as mental illness, physical deformity, blindness and others), which first implemented involuntary sterilization of such people, and later, euthanasia. These people were to be considered “useless eaters,” with “lives not worthy to be lived.” In 1939, the same law was extended to newborns (and eventually juveniles up to 17 years old); estimates are that up to 5,000 children were killed through these means.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunals, and hold these present-day monsters accountable for their crimes. As stated at the beginning of this article, more than 46 million human beings have died (i.e., were deliberately murdered) as a result of the banning of DDT—and this is only one of the many deadly crimes committed in the name of “environmentalism.” During the last 56 years, the policies, laws and other decisions enforced—based on the Greenies’ demands—constitute crimes against humanity under Principle VI of the Nuremberg Code. In total, hundreds of millions have died, not only from the banning of DDT, but from the systematic thwarting, imposed by Greenie policies, of any and all economic and technological development.

Developing the Passion for Truth

DDT has killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.

—The World Health Organization

For those who have a heart that can feel compassion for our fellows, it is now long past time that the crime that was committed with the banning of DDT be reversed. DDT is effective against malaria, typhus, body lice and bubonic plague, and kills such pests as mosquitos and tsetse flies, among others. We must lift the ban and implement its deployment without delay.

This, however, is only the beginning. We need to develop our planet and bestow a productive future for the 7.7 billion human beings who now inhabit it, and their progeny. With advanced energy resources such as controlled thermonuclear fusion, and huge infrastructure projects here and abroad, particularly among many nations of Africa, we can drain swamps, green the desert, and increase the quality and quantity of our food supplies and the global standard of living.

In a major discussion of the relationship between economics and culture, music and morality, Lyndon LaRouche develops the following:

Justice, truthfulness, and those creative powers by means of which we may discover valid, revolutionary principles of our universe, form a seamless whole, in which Classical culture, morality, and physical science, are united by a common passion for universal justice and truth. . . .

These issues of truth and justice are associated empirically with tests of humanity’s increased power over the physical universe, per capita, and per square kilometer of the Earth’s surface. The increased development of the average newborn individual, the increase of per-capita power, the maintenance of the increase of those improvements in demographic and productive characteristics, and so forth, are typical of the evidence by means of which we may know that changes in knowledge for practice are in accord with the Creator’s intent for the laws of the universe. This accords with justice, as justice means a more adequate participation of each individual life as a world-historical being, a life so dwelling in the simultaneity of eternity, a mental life thus situated in the further development of the condition of all mankind. . . .

This, as we shall see, leads us directly to the issue: If reason must be controlled by passions, rather than the dead hand of mere logic, what shall govern these passions? How shall we define the injunction of I Corinthians 13 on this account? By what means are such passions uniquely efficient in guiding us to practices of truth and justice? How do we, then, distinguish, those passions and forms of passion which are irrational, from those contrary forms which are the seat and substance of reason? This is the issue of culture. This is the issue which places Classical culture morally and otherwise apart from and above all currently popular misconceptions of culture.[fn_11]

We are in the midst of a war to defend America, defend humanity, and to defeat the “Liberal economics” barbarians. This crap of “Mother Earth” or the “New Age” would not have been tolerated during World War I or World War II. Fewer would tolerate it now if they were to awaken to our true circumstances.

In a financial (or other) crisis, do you really want your neighbor to believe there are limited resources and that you’re no better than a rat? Do you really want your neighbor to have a “lifeboat” mentality, and threaten you in times of scarcity? Or, wouldn’t you rather have an economic, cultural and technological philosophy that says, “We will all survive, and flourish, together!”?

Mankind stands at the gateway to the galaxy—we are at a turning point of history, in which we can demolish the British oligarchy and take a step forward into a new optimistic era. We as a nation will not be able to participate in the Four Powers Agreement if we cling to the Greenie ideology. In the words of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, it is time for humanity to “grow up.” It is time to join with Russia, China, and India to create a new Eden, for all mankind, now and for future generations.

References

Carson, Rachel (2018). Silent Spring and Other Writings on the Environment, Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., New York, N.Y.

Coffman, Michael S. (1994). “The Pagan Roots of Environmentalism,” 21st Century Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 3.

Deighton, Hilda (1958). The Earliest Days of Anthroposophy in America. Retrieved from www.asnyc.org/history/deightonhistoryofasinnyc-web.pdf.

Edwards, J. Gordon (2002). “Mosquitos, DDT, and Human Health,” 21st Century Science & Technology, Fall 2002.

Pauli, John (2013). “The Rachel Carson Letters and the Making of Silent Spring,” SAGE Open, July 2, 2013.

Websites

https://www.biodynamics.com/biodynamic-principles-and-practices

www.pfeiffercenter.org/about_us/ehrenfried_pfeiffer.aspx

https://leadtogether.org/marjorie-spock/

www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm

For Further Reading

Burdman, Mark (1989). “Satanists escalate war against Western Civilization,” EIR, Vol. 16, No. 1.

Edwards, J. Gordon (1992). “The Lies of Rachel Carson.”

Edwards, J. Gordon (2004). “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol. 9, No. 3.

Pike, Tim (1979). “The Great DDT Hoax,” EIR, Vol. 6, No. 29.

Pollak, Richard (1980). “The Great Pesticide Hoax,” Fusion, Vol. 4, No. 1.

---