Green Tyranny

My copy of Rupert Darwall’s Green Tyranny (2017) arrived yesterday, and I’ve begun leafing through it. On the cover it says that it is “Exposing the totalitarian toots of the climate industrial complex”, but it might better have said “Exposing the Nazi roots of the Green movement.” For on page 2 it mentions

“the Nazi belief that industrialisation was causing a cancer epidemic.”

And on page 6 it has:

“The Nazis became the first political party in the world to promote wind energy”

And on page 8:

“Why solar? The sun had an important place in Nazi symbolism. The Green’s sunflower logo was designed by a former Nazi: Joseph Beuys.

And on page 30:

“Mankind’s subservience to the commands of nature provides the connecting thread between Nazism and modern-day environmentalism, and represents a radical rejection of the Enlightenment’s belief in progress”

Page 32:

“As an approximation, subtract Nazi race-hate, militarism, and desire for world conquest, then add global warming, and Nazi ideology ends up looking not dissimilar to today’s environmental movement”

Page 37:

“Nazi public health policies incorporated Liek’s view that cancer was a disease of civilisation – that is, caused by lifestyle choices and industrial pollution. Nazi slogans proclaimed. “Your body belongs to the nation”… As Hitler once put it, “Why nationalise industry when you can nationalise the people?” On another occasion, Hitler told an aide that “reforming the human lifestyle” was more important to him than politics.”

“Despite being a militant antismoker – Hitler once attributed giving up cigarettes to his being the salvation of the German people – the regime failed to stop the rise in German tobacco consumption.”

On page 40, however, Darwall reveals that he’s not in favour of smoking either. After connecting Silent Spring author Rachel Carson to  Wilhelm Hueper and Erwin Liek, he asks:

“Were Liek, Hueper, and Carson right? Omitted from Carson’s reservoir of carcinogens is the one that has killed far and away the largest number of people – the humble tobacco leaf… Carson’s war on industrial society was, like the Nazis’ before it, motivated by ideological zealotry, not by evidence.”

The book connects up all the Nazi dots: Wind power. Solar energy. Hatred of industry. Public Health. Lifestyle reform. Vegetarianism. Ubiquitous carcinogens in more or less everything. And of course antismoking. Darwall may as well have written (but did not): Modern environmentalism = Nazism. For, coming up on a century later, Nazism remains oddly modern, given that many of its tenets have been adopted into public consciousness, usually as unquestionable truths.

And not even Darwall can bring himself to call into question the Nazi antismoking doctrines which now prevail in Public Health throughout the world. And of course it is difficult to question it in a world in which we are constantly being told that Smoking kills:

Nazism is perhaps just a reflection or expression of a modern mood of deep anxiety – perhaps even panic – about the highly industrialised and monetised  human society that has emerged over the past few centuries. It’s a nostalgia for the lost stability of a simple and bucolic life rooted in a landscape of fields and trees and rivers. The Enlightenment dream of Progress is felt to have been a mirage. Life hadn’t got any better: it had got worse. We were all now facing imminent catastrophe, either by nuclear war or global warming or maybe just the ubiquitous carcinogens present in even the breath we exhale. Page 39, quoting Rachel Carson:

“The most determined effort should be made to eliminate these carcinogens that now contaminate our food, our water supplies, and our atmosphere, because these provide the most dangerous type of contact – minute exposures, repeated over and over through the years.”

This is the homeopathic notion that the more minute the exposures, and the longer they are repeated, the more dangerous they are. Fear of secondhand smoke is a modern homeopathic doctrine. Don’t worry about that gun in the gunman’s hand: worry about the cigarette in his mouth. And this is why the WHO’s priority is to stamp out smoking rather than Ebola or Zika or resurgent Black Plague.

The irrationality of this really grows out of our own inability to understand the world in which we live. We don’t understand industry. We don’t understand money. We don’t understand cancer. We don’t understand climate. We don’t even know what’s better and what’s worse. Our misunderstanding is our irrationality. And because we don’t understand much, we are largely irrational in more or less everything we do. And Nazism is the perfect expression of this kind of irrationality.

Some other fragments from the book caught my attention: On page 36, Hitler is quoted:

“What was once accident must become planned. We must do away with accident.”

For this another collision, between a free and spontaneous society and a planned and regimented one. For our modern Nazis in Public Health are busy planning what we will all eat and drink, and how much of it we will be allowed. We won’t be allowed to smoke anything, of course. And our cars will be replaced with electric ones, and the electricity will be generated by windmills. And in that planned world, all freedom will vanish completely.  It will be the most perfect green tyranny.

 

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Green Tyranny

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    Interesting to see the common totalitarian theme among ‘public health’. It is also instructive to see that even when knowledgeable about the Nazi legacy and influence the antismoking meme still persists. Such is the power of relentless propaganda.

  2. Tony says:

    What was once accident must become planned. We must do away with accident.”
    I’m not sure if this is relevant but soon after the ban I remember seeing Arthur Smith talking about his brother on TV. His brother was Richard Smith, the editor and Chairman of BMJ publications. The BMJ had published an editorial banning the use of the word ‘accident’ in the BMJ. Instead, everything had to be attributed to a cause of some sort and it was this that Arthur was criticising. If I remember right he saw this as driving ‘blame culture’.

  3. waltc says:

    Well, well, well. Wouldn’t it be funny if Glantz was brought down for leering and talking dirty, but any whichway you can…

    http://www.sfexaminer.com/ucsf-professor-prominent-tobacco-control-activist-accused-sexual-harassment-former-mentee/

    • Unless someone else comes forward with something a bit more concrete I don’t think this will have much effect unfortunately. “Leering,” “staring at my chest,” and “talking about a movie with an orgy in it,” are unlikely to stand up against the phalynx of lawyers UCSF will bring forward.

      Still, it could prove interesting.

      – MJM

      • Rose says:

        “Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.
        In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by the United States’ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
        “It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex.”
        Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

        In the current climate, phalanx of lawyers or not, things are very different.

        • Joe L. says:

          Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature

          And Glantz has proven himself to be quite proficient at both bullying and coercion.

    • Maybe there is a Santa Claus….! That would be utterly hilarious to see that hideous crap-sack humiliated and ruined.

    • Joe L. says:

      Wow!!! Thanks for this, Walt — you made my week!

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Glantz has done worse than this accuser claims. He is quite unattractive and curmudgeonly and he wields tremendous power at UCSF. He could very well be the Harvey Weinstein of academia.

      … Plus he’s being accused of being a racist, to boot!

      I hope this is all true and many other victims start coming forward. May the fires of Hell rain down on Stanton Glantz, and expose him for the sleazy fraud he is, destroying whatever circle-jerking credibility he has gained as a “tobacco control activist,” and also as a human being.

    • Rose says:

      “Neeley accused Glantz of consistent inappropriate behavior that included staring at her body, making comments directed at Neeley referencing sex, making sexual remarks about other women to Neeley while at the workplace, and making racist remarks about Neeley, who is black.”

      “In March, Neeley requested a new mentor, but claims that the harassment continued. After UCSF notified Glantz of its investigation against him, Neeley alleges that her former advisor insisted on being named as an author of her work, and ultimately removed her name from a research paper that he took credit for.”

      “Neeley claims that other female employees were also targeted by Glantz, and complained to Neeley that “the leering made them uncomfortable.”
      The lawsuit alleges that the university was made aware of Glantz’s misconduct but failed to “take meaningful action to protect Neeley and other females from further sexual harassment.”

      Makes you shudder to even think of it.

  4. Joe L. says:

    “Were Liek, Hueper, and Carson right? Omitted from Carson’s reservoir of carcinogens is the one that has killed far and away the largest number of people – the humble tobacco leaf… Carson’s war on industrial society was, like the Nazis’ before it, motivated by ideological zealotry, not by evidence.”

    What a hypocrite this Darwall is! Does he not see (or does he choose to not see) that today’s Antismoking movement is also blatantly motivated by ideological zealotry? Where is Darwall’s evidence that tobacco “has killed far and away the largest number of people”? There are still zero death certificates in existence which list tobacco as a cause of death.

    How can people like Darwall be so skeptical of other ideological movements yet ignore the elephant in the room that is tobacco? Was Darwall forced to toe the Antismoking line, or is he personally an Antismoker? Either way, he loses all credibility in my eyes, as he is either a shill or a sheep.

  5. Mark Jarratt, Kandy, Sri Lanka says:

    Overdue for puritanical bullies like “Prof” S Glantz to receive some coercion and a blowtorch to the belly. Various Australian “public health” cultists should also be held accountable, and publicly shamed, while being drummed out of Order of Australia ranks for the hard paternalism inflicted on other citizens.🕺

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.