Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter Six :: People Are Natural Resources
The North Cascades ecosystem is truly visionary. It's also bold and a little ambitious. I know you are only in the early stages of planning and organizing. There are hundreds of obstacles to be overcome. It will not happen quickly. But like all good ideas, this one comes from the people.[1]
If the North Cascades International Park is such a good idea, if it truly 'comes from the people,' why are the proponents preparing to wear down the opposition? It is not likely that the idea for the park nor the explosion of environmental regulations originated from the working classes who make their living mining, ranching, farming, harvesting trees, etc. It is more likely that it originated from those who make their 'living' off the public trough and are upset to witness the despoiling of their favorite pristine recreational areas. Most people will not be excited about this plan when they realize that it will place them a couple notches lower on the food chain.
The sensible principles that apply to long term maintenance and improvement of the natural environment of the North Cascades apply as well to the human social and economic environments.[2]
Outcome Based Environmentalism
Professor Nugent's plan to place human social and economic environments in subordination to the natural environment utilizes the outcome based approach.
The most important first step is developing an approach and outlook that allows broad based community decision making that gives outcomes consistent with the forces of economic, social, and environmental change.[3]
In every sphere of modern society we are conditioned for outcomes, not results. Results are the outflow of diligence and effort, or the lack thereof. It is measurable. Outcomes are the outflow of consensus. Nobody is ahead; nobody is behind. With outcomes, we measure how we feel, not what we produce.
A few years ago, I read a newspaper account of international comparisons of student testing. Of the developed nations in the world, the students of the United States scored dead last academically. However, there was one special question at the end of the test. All students were asked how they felt about their performance on the test. To this question the American students scored the highest.
Our government schools teach our children the importance of feeling good about what they do whether they do anything or nothing. It is not important to do well. Already our careers are being measured by how we feel about them. Our usefulness to our employer, our service to our family and community are no longer priorities.
Modern economists, motivated by political and environmental concerns, reject the traditional view of family, morality and work. The view that "life's experiences" are more important than livelihood comes right out of the Woodstock mindset.[4] Our sole purpose is to feel good, love freely and get high. Professor Nugent claimed that "the effort to find and agree on sustainable ways of managing. . . natural resources. . . must be aimed at maintaining and improving the quality of life's experiences."[5]
Any job is as good as another. They see no difficulty with replacing productive, wealth producing employment with paper shuffling busywork. Their concept of productivity is the power lunch and has nothing to do with logging, farming, building, manufacturing, etc. They spend hours upon hours in meetings and seminars working to build consensus and training the rank and file to walk in the same dark light.
The Ecosystem Protection Paper was prepared by members of the NPR Ecosystem Protection Team with input from other EPA staff. This paper resulted from review of previous documents on ecosystem protection, several day long seminars. . .[6]
We will have a lifetime of seminars to prop up our artificial self esteem. Self esteem has become our god.
Most economists spend their time sitting at desks, looking at statistics and crunching numbers or building political networks. They are oblivious to the tangible principles of economic and social reality. They obtain grants and build political power bases by reproving industry for being the destroyer of the ecology. Measuring their success by the size of their desk, they determine that their occupational style is most preferred. So they work to transform people whose occupations are 'destructive to the environment' believing that they will save the earth while providing these people with good paying jobs.
Ecosystem protection is often seen as a goal which is in conflict with other societal and economic values and interests. There is increasing recognition, however, that economic stability is in fact interrelated with healthy, functioning ecosystems. Many sectors of our society are directly and indirectly affected by past and present ecosystem degradation. The Florida Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay are both examples showing how the cumulative effects of human activity can destroy the inherent capacity of natural systems to sustain themselves, leading to significant economic dislocation. The unabated destruction of these natural systems, which sustain us today and our children tomorrow, must be halted. A national effort is needed to promote balanced and sustainable uses of our natural resources.[7]
When I was in school, we were taught that Lake Erie was destroyed beyond repair. It would take at least two hundred years to clean. In the late 1960s, it was the most ecologically abused lake in America. It received heavy industrial waste from local manufacturing, human debris from local sewers and it received the Detroit River, which brought debris and waste from several large industrial cities. Everything flowed in and little flowed out. It was so bad that it became known as 'Dead Lake.'
It is now reported to be one of the cleanest lakes in the world. "It is no accident that the cleanest lakes are now in the wealthy free market West, while the worst pollution is in Beijing or Russia's Aral Sea."[8] An austere or repressed economy would never have had the economic ability to extinguish the dumping and help clean up the lake.
When Mount St. Helens erupted, it was predicted that it would take hundreds of years for the land to recover. Not only have the lands recovered these short 15 years, but;
The stage was set for a grand demonstration. On similar but separate parcels of land, side by side, one could observe and compare natural recovery with managed and assisted recovery. Within a year, or two, the return of life, both plant and animal, was remarkable, and the differences between the natural and the managed areas are dramatic. Both are recovering, but the public lands, left undisturbed, lag far behind. Nature proved far more resilient than most people expected. Within a year, bracken, ferns, thistle, fireweed, and pearly everlasting dotted the landscape. On the private land. . . experimental plantings. . . were made. . . . Now a dozen years later, these plantings have grown to a lush forest, with most trees between 25 and 30 feet tall.[9]
The earth has proven to be hardy. Though we may harm it, we cannot destroy it that is reserved for God. As a matter of fact, both of these examples clearly demonstrate how mankind is able to facilitate the renewal process of the earth by exercising stewardship and responsible caretaking. Have the environmentalists and park promoters ever considered that if they used their money and effort to aid industry and agriculture that we could have the best of both worlds? If we worked for expanding enterprise with an eye for good ecology, rather than working for government control and regulation, we could have productive jobs, abundant resources and a clean environment.
Centralization and Micromanagement
First, a broad national vision for change is needed. The federal government must focus this vision. . . eliminate gaps and inconsistencies in existing laws and pass new laws such as establishing a "Green Bank Program," and other programs. Second, EPA should be a catalyst to the national vision for change by establishing and disseminating a set of organizing principles for ecosystem protection.[10]
Economist Nugent claimed that, "economic enhancement and stability follow from an ecosystem approach, and do not result from traditional, isolated economic decision making." This means that we take decision making out of the hands of the entrepreneur and place that responsibility in the hands of an all knowing bureaucracy. Eventually, this will lead to government franchise of all jobs and resources and an end to the American dream. We will move away from an environment controlled by man to a society where people are subordinate to their ecosystem, or the bureaucrats thereof.
In chapter three, we reviewed her three step[11] approach to bringing the economy under government control. These are the plans that many of our government bureaucrats have for our lives. This is what government schools are teaching our children who will grow up to run businesses or more government bureaucracies.
Her first step could lead to forced abortions or sterilizations if it is determined that the population is growing too fast for projected limits on resource extraction. Somebody will have to keep track of 'quality of life' measurements for step number two. That person, committee or government bureaucracy will determine land use policy and educational outcomes and curriculum based upon their view of the needs of the environment. Who will this be, a political bureaucracy looking for power, or a family man, who believes in enterprise and jobs for his community?
The third step will require extensive data banks. This will be for keeping track of resources, markets and jobs, and every child, student and employee. The socialists will train our children for the job that they determine them to be most qualified. There will be no choices. This is the modern doomsday book.
The EPA has proposed to accumulate regulatory powers through the executive branch and into a centralized bureaucracy. They further propose to arm this administration with the power to anticipate the requirements of the ecosystem and the power to regulate without congressional approval.
The Executive Branch should: 1) develop a national ecosystem management policy which is implemented jointly by the appropriate federal agencies pursuant to an executive order. . . . EPA should be a catalyst to the national vision for change by establishing and disseminating a set of organizing principles for ecosystem protection that can be used by Federal, state and local governments, citizens and other organizations. EPA should also implement structural changes through an ecosystem protection policy issued by the Administrator which establishes ecosystem task forces, and ecosystem plans, and institutionalizes ecosystem management principles.[12]
For example, the task force would recommend federal legislation providing agencies with the authority to anticipate and prevent biodiversity loss.[13]
Under this bureaucracy, humans are viewed as a resource to be managed. To protect the ecosystem, people must live in the big cities, leaving the wilds untouched. Yet they must also be productive enough to pay taxes so that we can achieve 'sustainable economies.' People are a resource to enhance the environment and centralize the civil government.
We have begun this process in the State of Washington with the passage of the Growth Management Act of 1990[14] and the 1991 amendments.[15] The outcome of these bills will eventually lead to the abolition of all rural development while mandating higher densities within the cities and the 'urban growth areas.'
We have High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on our urban freeways, which essentially restrict 25 to 33 percent of their capacity. This only serves to accentuate, rather than relieve, rush hour congestion. These HOV lanes have proved to be a failure. Yet, our bureaucrats will not admit defeat. Instead, they are proposing to sell transponders to commuters and charge single occupant vehicles (SOV) for the privilege to use these lanes.
Even amidst the failure of years of carpooling promotions and empty Metro buses, they forge ahead with plans for high speed light rails systems, which will prove to be expensive. If it is profitable, why don't we allow private enterprise to build it and run it? There is more power, nonetheless, to be gained by robbing the people who will never ride it for the benefit of those who will build it and run it.
Furthermore, our bureaucrats have delayed the improvements to several hazardous rural highways. Two of the most dangerous highways in the State of Washington, highways 18 and 522, have been at the top of the priority list for improving. Somehow, the legislature found ways to spend the money on something else. In the 1992 session, they transferred transportation funds to the general budget,[16] in violation of our State Constitution.[17] The following year, due to public outrage, they put most, but not all, of the money back.[18] After these funds were returned, somehow, these dangerous highways were dropped to the bottom of the list.
By creating an appearance of crises, they tried to coerce the people into accepting tolled roads as a logical, expedient remedy. If this precedent is established, this will only aid in the deceleration of rural business and employment, moving the people back to the cities. It is not coincidental that this was proposed subsequent to the Growth Management Act.
Washington State is not alone; almost every State is fighting similar battles. The civil government is no longer our servant. Our State and federal bureaucracies are using people as a resource to manage for political ends.
The US should develop human population policies that are consistent with sustainable economies and ecosystems.[19]
Ensure field organizations are responsive to the interdisciplinary ecosystem management concept. . . including sound Human Resource Management principles. . .[20]
All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as a biological resource.[21]
This philosophy will elevate environmental concerns above human consequence. People will be merely another factor in the environment. Consideration of the human cost of regulations will be subordinated to the needs of the entire ecosystem.
Although existing environmental statutes. . . are based primarily on human health impacts. . . . Regulatory standards thus often fail to consider cross media impacts that can impair ecosystem viability. . .[22]
EPA must make ecosystem protection a primary goal of the Agency, on a par with human health, as recommended by the EPA Science Advisory Board.[23]
Data collection on environmental and social resources and needs will be centralized. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) has been developed for just that purpose. This data collection agency was established by Vice President Al Gore as part of his National Performance Review and is in concert with his proactive approach to ecosystem management. The NSDI will oversee the "coordination of Federal geographic data activities in conjunction with State and local governments and the private sector; put in place data standards that will foster data sharing. . . encourage coordinated data collection."[24]
The EPA intends to direct local planning agencies to regionalize, or consolidate their powers and functions.[25] Money will flow toward the cooperative local governments, but ultimately local authority will be usurped. Their goal is to have the power to assess entire regions with fines, creating more government income and government jobs. They will use mitigations, along with the complete removal of private industry and jobs, to returning these areas to their natural state. When local jobs are gone, local governments will be powerless.
Ironically, it is this local government barrier that is preventing them from accomplishing this destructive centralization of power right now. The EPA report lists several obstacles. Two are worth noting. Under the paragraph "Including Ecological Considerations in Enforcement Actions,"[26] barrier number three is the "primacy of state enforcement." Under the paragraph, "Increasing the Use of Anticipatory Planning,"[27] barrier number four states; "EPA has little influence over state and local policies."
Nonetheless, they have figured out a way to circumvent local jurisdictions so that they will be able to accomplish the wholesale closure of regional industrial areas. They will break it down into small pieces, then bring all the pieces together. Whether this is accomplished concurrently or consecutively, the effect will be the wholesale destruction of private enterprise within the targeted regions.
The Office of Enforcement should cluster enforcement actions on a geographical/ecosystem basis to address the cumulative impact of multiple facilities on ecosystems. These multimedia enforcement initiatives would focus on specific ecosystems (e.g., San Francisco Bay Delta). Ecosystem status and trends on a landscape basis should be used. . . to direct compliance inspections and enforcement activity at those facilities adversely impacting vulnerable and/or endangered ecosystems. In addition, opportunities for the restoration, enhancement, and protection of local ecosystems should be mandatorily assessed in every enforcement action undertaken by the EPA, and where appropriate, should be incorporated into all settlements negotiated by Agency enforcement officials.[28]
Managing the Population Crisis
Who will give us the picture of what pristine looks like? Is it more beautiful or livable than that portion of the earth that is responsibly managed by man? Environmentalists claim that people are wearing down the planet.
These are two misguided notions. The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that everything deteriorates, or gets worse. The 'natural' state of the planet is degradation. There must have been a reason that God put man upon the earth and told him to subdue it and to populate it.[29] This principle was rejected at Babel and it is now rejected by the environmentalists and the park promoters.
When analyzing the landscape within an ecosystem management framework it is essential to include. . . . The impact of human occupation. . .[30]
Changing ideas about how to protect ecosystems provides evolving techniques and expanding perspectives for managing the human impact to the environment.[31]
As the United Nations Conference on Population convened in Cairo, the manifest theme was the uncontrolled proliferation of the masses. Vice President Al Gore supported the Malthusian viewpoint with an op ed column written for the Los Angeles Times Syndicate.[32] In his column, he blamed population growth for the degradation of the natural resources.
The Malthusians try to convince us that 'overcrowding' is an evil thing. 'Experts' claim that overcrowding breeds poverty. If this is true, why are the sparse states of Central America much poorer than the urbanized nations of Western Europe? On the other hand, poverty is an institution in the United States. The poverty class has increased tenfold, while our population has only increased by 30 percent, in the last thirty years. That is the civilization we get when we pay people to become poor. Government regulation breeds poverty. There is no substance to any theories relating population and poverty.
Some experts claim that we do not have the ability to feed all the people. Our science, however, has so progressed that for the first time in the recorded history of the world, our ability to produce food has exceeded the proliferation of the people. Since 1960, our agricultural technology has doubled the output of food production, with fewer farms. The only remaining barrier to feeding the world is war and the intrusion of governments.[33]
I suspect that virtually all of our current policy thinking about agriculture is very near in time of being totally irrelevant. Major crops such as corn and wheat could see thousandfold increases in yield through genetic manipulation.[34]
Despite the addition of 1.8 billion people in the last 30 years, the number of well fed people has increased, say the report "Food and Nutrition: Creating a Well fed World." . . . "Right now, there's enough food to feed everyone, if in fact it could get to the people who need it," Lupien said. [John R. Lupien, director of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.][35]
Fear is the tool that is used to 'educate' and coerce the masses to accommodate eugenic principles. The information that is used, however, is wrong it is propaganda.[36] The earth is far from overcrowded. In fact, the entire population of the world can be placed within the State of Texas with less than two thirds the density of New York City.[37]
Throughout the centuries, man has tried to answer the 'problem' of overpopulation. The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers lamented the wave of the masses and predicted ominous catastrophes for civilization if left unchecked. Of all the age old philosophers, Christ alone did not ascribe to that opinion. He said that He came to give life and He would give it to the full.[38] Furthermore, He rebuked those who would hinder the little children, the small masses, from coming to Him.[39]
There is an underlying hostility of the elite toward the common man that drives this movement of eugenics abortion, euthanasia and suicide. In an interview with Ted Turner, media magnate, in Audubon magazine, he claimed that, "Right now, there are just too many people on the planet." He plans for the population to be cut back from the 5 billion we currently have, to no more than "250 million to 350 million." Furthermore, he claimed that "we are a bunch of pigs. . . and losers." He said that he believes we should return to spears, loin cloths and human sacrifices. "The indigenous people were the ones who were right!"[40]
Turner has joined the cultural elite. When he calls us pigs, I wish that he would just speak for himself. He has no intention of giving up his billions of dollars and vast power to become a primitive. He wants us, nonetheless, to believe that we should. Why is it that the moguls with money and power are trying to convince us that our small prosperity is theft? Why do they want us to believe that the environment will disintegrate if we do not surrender our God given rights?
The real reason for this war on the people, this rhetoric of overpopulation, 'save the earth,' etc., is not a fear of ecological collapse. It is a fear of intrusion, the intrusion of the masses upon the privileged. Geraldine Payton, wrote that, "The demand for backcountry recreation already exceeds the supply."[41] The Cascades International Alliance claims that, "The burgeoning population and ensuing development increase the demand for resources and recreation on an already beleaguered ecosystem."[42] The purpose of the national parks movement was to preserve recreational areas for the elite away from the people.
In his book, The Intellectuals and the Masses,[43] John Carey reviews the disgust that most of the literary scholars and writers have felt toward the common people. Most of these intellectuals feared overcrowding and considered the proliferation of the masses to be an intrusion upon their lives.
The crowd has taken possession of places which were created by civilization for the best people.[44]
[Speculative builders were the ones who buy] all the pretty woods and fields, grub up the grass and trees, and put streets there and lamp posts and ugly yellow brick houses. . . . Everything is getting uglier and uglier.[45]
The elite became more jealous of the masses after the institution of universal education. The common people were beginning to prosper themselves, move out of the cities and checkerboard the country side with little box houses. Previously, the poor and the middle classes were relegated into the crowded cities. Now we enjoy the same luxuries as the wealthy. This was and is their fear.
The masses were finally taking their place within the domain of the wealthy. This is what motivated many of the 'great' writers and intellects of this century to rally support for the Eugenics movement and its leading patron, Adolph Hitler. Even before that time, the intellectuals had infiltrated Malthusian philosophy into the natural sciences. The theory of evolution began as a treatise on the supremacy of the Caucasian race. Do you know that the original title to Charles Darwin's famous work was, The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life?
Darwin put together the principles necessary for his theory of natural selection after reading the Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus.[46] Malthus wrote this work in 1798 claiming that the population will always grow until restrained by war, famine or plague. Using the principles set forth by Malthus and Darwin, Francis Galton founded the study of eugenics to improve genetic endowment. Shortly thereafter, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, began to use eugenics for the advancement of the Caucasian races. Adolf Hitler put their theories into practice and began eliminating the masses.
Despite their success in social and scientific circles, their most famous spokesman, Adolf Hitler, managed by his excessive zeal and candor to make such arguments intellectually unfashionable, for a time. Not even Hitler's murderous excesses and final disgrace, however, could stifle the opinions or activities of those who believe that there are simply too many people walking the earth.[47]
It is this resentment of the intruding masses that has caused the elite to hold the people in such disdain. H.G. Wells called the "extravagant swarm of new births, the essential disaster of the nineteenth century."[48] Nietzche claimed that, "Many too many are born." He said that a "declaration of war on the masses by higher men is needed."[49] Flaubert wrote that, "I believe that the mob, the mass, the herd will always be despicable."[50]
George Orwell, eventually deploring the masses as well as his own existence, wrote, "My poems are dead because I'm dead. You're dead. We're all dead. Dead people in a dead world. . ."[51] There is a Biblical principle that all who hate wisdom love death.[52]
Is it any wonder that our culture is fascinated with death? We have forsaken the wisdom that founded this nation. We have bought the elitists' theories. Now, like them we fear intrusion and inconvenience. That explains why fewer than two thirds of our babies survive the womb.
It has been said, "The one principle of hell is, 'I am my own.'"[53]
Footnotes:
[1]op. cit., Sen. Murray. Compare her statement with Governor Lowry’s letter to Dale Crane on p. 25. "I am aware that many difficulties exist and a great deal of work must be done to create the political climate necessary for the enactment of appropriate laws in both nations. I wish you well and hope the needed consensus can be achieved."
[2]op. cit., Nugent.
[3]op. cit., Nugent.
[4]Isaiah 3:12 warns us that when we parade our sin like Sodom, e.g. Woodstock, our guides will lead us astray and women will rule over us. God made man and women to be uniquely different, equal in worth, but distinct in role and responsibility. Where women tend to be governed by emotions, or feelings, man is governed by discipline and productivity. In rejecting God’s laws we have substituted discipline and productivity for feelings. Our guides, the psychologists and counselors, lead us off the path and women do by default rule over us. Feelings have triumphed over substance.
[5]op. cit., Nugent.
[6]op. cit., EPA, p.2.
[7]id.
[8]op. cit., "Senator Malthus," The Wall Street Journal
[9]op. cit., Ray and Guzzo, pp. 106 107.
[10]op. cit., EPA, p. 3.
[11]"1) growing only as fast and in ways that the human population and natural resource availability and regeneration can support. 2) keeping track of current conditions and progress. . . adopting ‘indicator’ or ‘quality of life’ measurement systems to provide information and guide policy decisions, from land use to educational resource decisions. 3) As life changes more quickly than before, and local, regional and global influences are more pressing, a system is needed to ensure maintenance for the community’s priorities. . . . knowing how many jobs at what skill and income level are provided. . . . natural resources are needed. . . . the community must be prepared and have a mechanism to reject those enterprises and activities that are inconsistent with long term viability." op. cit., Nugent.
[12]op. cit., EPA, p. 3.
[13]op. cit., EPA, p. 10. There is a word play here to mask the bureaucracy’s intent to assume legislative authority. On the one hand they will "recommend legislation," but on the other hand they will have the "authority to anticipate and prevent." It is common for bureaucratic agencies to twist a law to grant them more powers than the legislative body intended. Other times, they will just legislate. If they are not challenged, they have successfully assumed additional powers.
[14]Washington State Legislature, ESHB 2929 (1990).
[15]Washington State Legislature, RSHB 1025 (1991).
[16]SB5972 (1992). This bill transferred $120,000,000 from the transportation budget to the operating fund.
[17]"All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes. . . motor vehicle fuel. . . other state revenue intended. . . shall be. . . placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for highway purposes." Washington State Constitution, art. 2, sec. 40.
[18]HB2287 (1993).
[19]op. cit., EPA, p. 9.
[20]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: Field Organization Strategy."
[21]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management."
[22]op. cit., EPA, p. 5.
[23]op. cit., EPA, p. 11.
[24]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: National Performance Review Initiatives."
[25]"EPA should direct grants to state and local governments to form regional planning units around ecosystem protection." op. cit., EPA, p. 19.
[26]op. cit., EPA, pp. 14 15.
[27]op. cit., EPA, pp. 15 16.
[28]op. cit., EPA, pp. 14 15.
[29]Genesis 1:28.
[30]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management."
[31]op. cit., Paul Pritchard
[32]Albert Gore Jr., "Population is a Major Global Crisis," Seattle Post Intelligencer (04 Sep. 94), New Perspectives Quarterly, LA Times Syndicate.
[33]ed. cit., Ray & Guzzo, chapter 6.
[34]Terry Sharrer, Smithsonian Institute, Curator of Agriculture, quoted op. cit., Biotechnology In A Global Economy, US Government Printing Office (Oct 1991).
[35]David Briscoe, AP, "Food Producers Keep Pace With Population Rise," Chicago Sun Times, (21 Sep. 92).
[36]Propaganda: pro pagan (duh!).
[37]The population of New York city is 7.323 million people and they live within an area of 304 square miles. The population density of that city is 24,089 people per square mile. The land area of Texas is 267,339 square miles. Placing 5 billion people within that area will render the population density at 18,703 people per square mile.
[38]John 10:10.
[39]Matthew 18:6, 19:14
[40]ed. cit., Ray & Guzzo, p. 80.
[41]op. cit., Payten.
[42]op. cit., "Nature Has No Borders," brochure.
[43]John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses, Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880 1939, St. Martins Press, A Thomas Dunne Book (1992).
[44]José Ortega y Gasset, op. cit., abridged by Carey, p. 3.
[45]Edith Nesbit, quoted op. cit., Carey, p. 49.
[46]The father of the Malthusian philosophy.
[47]Otto Scott, "America’s War Against the Children," Chalcedon Report magazine (Jan. 95), p. 3.
[48]op. cit., Carey, p. 3.
[49]op. cit., Carey, p. 4.
[50]op. cit., Carey, p. 5.
[51]op. cit., Carey, p. 10. George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying.
[52]Proverbs 8:36. Furthermore, Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
[53]Cal Thomas, "The Sixties Are Dead: Long Live the Nineties," Imprimis, vol. 24, no. 1, (Jan 95) p. 4, quoting the novelist George MacDonald.