The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Down With the Czar!

September 17th, 2010 by Myrhaf · 7 Comments · Uncategorized

Are you ready for the latest stench to arise from the Obama swamp? The “Science Czar” wants to “use” the free market to “de-develop” the United States.

What?

In a video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

In his role as President Barack Obama’s top science and technology adviser, Holdren deals with issues ranging from global warming to health care.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

“De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. “This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Free market means freedom from government. If the government uses anyone or anything to effect its environmentalist dreams, that’s not freedom. The government can only use people with the threat of force backing up its dictations.

Holdren speaks of “frivolous and wasteful uses” and “overexploitation of world resources.” Who determines what is frivolous, wasteful or overexploitive? The American people? Individuals pursuing their happiness? No, the state judges all and dictates to the people.

“De-development” is a totalitarian nightmare. Holdren is talking about engineering the entire economy, which can only be done by total state control of, well, everything.

“De-development” would mean people dying. I know, the pragmatist-minded will pooh-pooh that. “Holdren isn’t talking about killing people! Don’t be an alarmist.” But if the 300 million people in America depend on a certain level of production, and the state lowers production beneath that level, what happens? First the standard of living decreases. People “make sacrifices” — which is the essence of Obama’s altruist-collectivist-statist morality. Lower production far enough and people start dying.

What is a “stable, low-consumption economy”? Certainly not America to date, or any country with a free market. Freedom means a constantly expanding economy. People always want more, and that’s a good thing — though not in the eyes of environmentalists. The USSR was a stable, low-consumption economy. Only chains can stop people from producing wealth.

What an astonishing age we live in. People who want a return to constitutional, limited government are smeared by the mainstream media as “extremists.” Meanwhile a man such as Holdren, who dreams of the total restructuring of the economy — bringing the entire economy under state control — is appointed “Science Czar” by the president of the USA. To the left Holdren is not an “extremist,” he’s an idealist.

It’s no wonder Atlas Shrugged is selling better than ever in its 53-year history.

7 Comments so far ↓

  • madmax

    Holdren is essentially saying that he wants to scale back the industrial revolution. He’s openly worshiping at the alter of the primitive. He also wants to decrease the American population. He doesn’t say this explicitly but he is having a human extermination fantasy.

    The Left has become truly sick. I say sick as in they are psychotic. This is the dead end of post modern philosophy’s assault on objective knowledge – almost the entire academic / political class are totally insane and vicious. Christine O’Donnell’s opposition to masturbation seems mild by comparison.

  • Inspector

    Ehrlich, you LOST the bet. YOU LOST.

    (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=44)

    Who let this man in the ROOM, much less into a position of influence on policy?

  • Fareed

    I recall that good fellow had a book called ultimate resource and ultimate resource 2

  • Andrew Dalton

    The continuing popularity of Paul Ehrlich illustrates the enormous power of moral ideas. Environmentalism is something that many people regard as morally right, practical consequences be damned. The Greens claim that their worldview is supported by dispassionate science, but their respect for Ehrlich shows just how naked the emperor is.

  • L-C

    He sounds positively Swedish. I think Dr. Hurd is right; the current president and his administration are the first anti-American such in history. There is something notably different about them.

    You’ve had your Roosevelts, Clintons and Bushs, but now there’s a Marxist proper in office.

    On Betsy Speicher’s forum there is a poster called rtg24 who works (hedge fund) more than most people think is humanly possible so that he can have his millions by the age of 40. I am becoming increasingly convinced that his is the best strategy for retaining a good life. Most of Europe is going down HARD and we will depend on “the other” option being available down the line…

  • Myrhaf

    Andrew, I think morality is also the reason so many people are certain that global warming is real and that it is caused by man. All those people creating carbon dioxide do it because they are selfish and greedy. To altruists it must be wrong. Like medieval monks, they don’t need scientific proof to persuade them that sacrifice is good.

  • Embedded I

    Re scientific proof

    We’re wallowing in scientific proof: that climate is normal, CO2 is low, that capitalism works, that most resources increase in abundance if there is demand, that truly limited resources are quickly replaced by invention (whale oil lantern anyone?), that chemicals are invaluable (bring back DDT), etc.

    Some listen to such facts, a bit. Many mumble something about how all that may be true but shouldn’t we look at both sides. Far too many scramble about, with either fear or resentment in their eyes, to grasp at yet another vacuous factoid that confirms, to them, that Mankind & free living equate with destruction… “The glaciers are receding” and the sky is falling too!

    Scientists et al. do not know what scientific proof is, even when it smacks them on the nose. A major reason is the failure of academia to grasp rational induction. Rand’s ITOE, Leonard Peikoff’s OPAR & DIM Hypothesis, and David Harriman’s “The Logical Leap” are essential reading for the scientific culture to really change.

    I imagine Al Gore’s autobiographical “The Assault on Reason” won’t quite do it.