Posted on 09/08/2003 4:41:06 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Just over three years ago American government officials arrived in Germany. Their mission: to adopt measures, in cooperation with other rich countries, that would kill hundreds of thousands of Africans annually. The killing of Africans was not the stated aim, of course, but it was the result of the disastrous consequences of these officials' plan to eliminate what they mischievously called "persistent organic pollutants" which include PCB, dioxins and DDT, the most demonised of pesticides, and so make the world safe for malaria carrying mosquitoes.
That PCBs, dioxins and DDT have been scientifically cleared cuts no ice with green bureaucrats who are obsessed with their own agenda, no matter how many Third World peasants it kills. Green bans on DDT amount to mass murder. And this is the dirty little secret that the Western media sits on while still maligning DDT and its supporters.
Professor E. N. Luttwak forcefully and accurately put the case for DDT some years ago when he wrote: "DDT, undoubtedly the greatest life giving discovery of the century, is now a dirty word in exactly the same circles where the words CIA and Pentagon are dirty words . . .The same chorus tells we cannot or should not break the oil cartel, that we can not build more nuclear plants because they are dangerous, that we cannot mine more coal because it ravages the earth, and lately, that we can not drill for offshore oil because it devastates the tidelands." He did not exaggerate when he called "DDT. . . the greatest life giving discovery of the century."
In his defence of DDT Prof. Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, pointed out: "It is a tragic error to believe that agricultural chemicals are a prime factor in the deterioration of our environment. The indiscriminate cancellation, suspension or outright banning of such pesticides as DDT is a game of dominoes we live to regret . . . . I have dedicated myself to find better ways of feeding the world's starving populations. Without DDT and other important agricultural chemicals, our goals are simply unattainable."
William Ruckelhaus, the US Environmental Protection Agency's first minister, banned DDT in June 1971, even though the April 1971 hearing on the so-called hazards of DDT concluded that no ban should be imposed. It was during this hearing that Claus and Bolander exposed the 'conservationists' so-called 'scientific' submissions on DDT as junk science.
Nevertheless, the very same Ruckelhaus, who barely a year earlier had publicly praised DDT for its "amazing and exemplary record of safe use", arbitrarily banned it. But if DDT is so benign why did he act as he did? Because green fanatics demanded it, regardless of the horrific cost in human life.
Ruckelhaus, who had not attended the hearing or read any part of the transcripts, later admitted that "decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political . . . [and] the ultimate judgement remains political . . . . [In] the case of pesticides, the power to make this judgement has been delegated to the Administrator of the EPA."
In other words, to hell with science, morality and common decency. And what happened to Ruckelhaus after he made his murderous decision? He got a big fat sinecure sitting on Monsanto's board of directors.
With malaria reaching plague proportions in South Africa and Mozambique, massive chemical spraying is the only way to stop it. But why bother when the victims are only black peasants, seems to be the greens' callous response.
Dr Charles Wurster, when chief scientist for the Environment Defence Fund, smugly responded to a question on the consequences of banning DDT by stating that there were too many people and "this is as good a way to get rid of them as any." That he was referring to non-whites was made clear when he told a congressional committee investigating pesticides: "It doesn't really make a lot of difference because the organophosphate (pesticides) act locally and only kill farm workers, and most are Mexicans and Negroes."
This was no misunderstanding. When a reporter asked him if banning DDT would cause the use of more toxic pesticides that had a history of killing people, Wurster retorted : "So what? People are the cause of all the problems. [It used to be Jews]. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them . . . ." When asked how he squared "the killing of people with the mere loss of some birds," he responded with the assertion that it did not "really make a lot of difference, because" these toxins mainly kill Mexicans and blacks."
Wurster is not the only greenie who seems to have a neo-Nazi attitude to the lives and wellbeing of non-whites. Dr Van den Bosch, University of California, criticised those who expressed concern for "all those little brown people in poor countries." An official from the U.S. Agency for International Development echoed this herrenvolk approach when he said of Third World peasants that they were "better dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
It seems that our green humanitarians have decided that denying poor people in poor countries the right to defend themselves against malaria is more effective and cheaper than gas chambers, death camps and firing squads.
How ironic that 55 years after the destruction of the Third Reich State Department officials met in a German city with European officials to extend a policy that had already resulted in mass murder.
Millions had died and millions more followed because the greens banned DDT.
What is particularly sickening is that those who practise green terrorism against defenceless peasants are lauded by journalists as heroes of the environment. In my opinion the whole lot of them should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.