Left Frantically Spins Discovery Shooter's Radical Environmentalism - Will MSM Follow

[DarthSegVator]

Left Frantically Spins Discovery Shooter's Radical Environmentalism - Will MSM Follow Suit?

By Lachlan Markay (Bio | Archive)
Wed, 09/01/2010 - 18:20 ET

Police just raided the Discovery Channel headquarters, where a man had taken hostages, and was apparently demanding that the channel air radical environmental propaganda. The man, James Jay Lee, pictured right, was reportedly shot and killed.

Though most of the details remain unclear, one fact is quickly coming into sharp focus: the left will be working overtime in the next few days to spin this event any way they can. It began with this astoundingly dishonest Think Progress headline: "Purported Eco-Terrorist Angered Over ‘Immigration Pollution And Anchor Baby Filth'"

That's right, of Lee's thousand-word manifesto in which he stated his demands of Discovery, Think Progress chose to highlight not the radical, militant environmentalism he espoused, but rather an obscure claim (in terms of overall message and word count) that immigrants to developed nations make the pollution situation worse.

Notably, Think Progress thought it was worth comparing Lee's position on this single issue to other groups that have made similar claims, but did not see fit to liken him groups of environmental activists who also think overpopulation is the problem (Tom Friedman, please call your office). Lee also said war was bad for the environment. Will Think Progress condemn anti-war groups that make similar claims?

Conservative bloggers predicted this line of attack since before it even emerged. Patterico pontificated: "They'll find a way to label him a right-winger - or at least a Tea Partier. Somehow." Indeed. Ace chimed in with his prediction: "You know how the media will report this, right? That's right: Anti-immigration extremist." Give the man a cigar.

But while it's hardly a surprise that the far-left is spinning the story as hard as they can, the question remains: will liberal journalists who often rip stories from Think Progress repeat this bogus line?

Will even the mainstream media pick up on this blatantly dishonest meme, and play up the immigration aspect while ignoring the larger message of environmental extremism?

For the media, the event is a bit of a role-reversal. Journalists who purported that militias or other perpetrators or advocates of violence against the government were products of a conservative/libertarian attitude embodied by the Tea Party movement are now put in the awkward position of having to apply that same logic to Lee and his radical environmentalism.

By the same line of argument, pundits who relentlessly push the notion that human beings are responsible for the impending apocalypse due to their refusal to moderate their population or change their lifestyles are responsible, at least in part, for today's violence.

The media may also choose to simply ignore the environmental aspect and focus on his immigration views, employing the same logic it has used to condemn the Tea Party movement. We will see.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan...#ixzz0yN0G64Mf

[DarthSegVator]

Eugenicist Gunman Exposes Dark Side of the Environmentalist Cult

James J. Lee’s online screed mirrors the rhetoric of global warming alarmists, was influenced by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 1, 2010

UPDATE: Police Say All Hostages Are Safe, Gunman James Lee Shot Dead

A crazed gunman who entered a Discovery Channel building in Silver Spring, Maryland today with explosives posted an online manifesto revealing his views on how “parasitic human infants” should be eliminated and humans sterilized, providing a shocking insight into the dark side of the environmentalist cult that seeks to enact draconian eugenicist policies in the name of saving the planet.

The gunman, named in reports as James J. Lee, ran a website called Save The Planet Protest. The site organized protests centered around the very building that Lee stormed today. It also included a screed detailing how Lee saw the birth of newborn babies as a plague upon the planet in a chilling echo of how many top environmentalists are now demonizing humanity itself in their bid to enact dictatorial control measures in the name of halting climate change.

According to reports, Lee underwent his environmentalist “‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s global warming documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”

In his online rant (archived here), Lee outlines the need to “disassemble civilization,” while putting into place Malthusian programs of population reduction and sterilization in order to combat global warming by stopping people from breeding and ending completely the use of crude oil.


alg_lee2.jpg

James J. Lee


“Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!” Lee rants, adding, “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!” which he also labels “parasitic human infants”.

“Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture,” he adds.

Lee’s entire manifesto reads like a clone of the more sophisticated but no less shocking rhetoric we’ve been hearing from top environmentalists for years.

With the global warming agenda collapsing on the back of Climategate as the Chicago Climate Exchange goes into meltdown, and with more and more people becoming skeptical of man-made climate change, its adherents are getting desperate and resorting to violence in an effort to reinforce their faltering extremist agenda.

The gunman’s call for draconian measures to be implemented to lower global population and destroy civilization echoes the eco-fascist propaganda of people like author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.

“The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization,” writes Farnish in the book, adding that “people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses”. Farnish’s call for violence, “razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams” provides a deadly blueprint for nutcases like Lee to follow.

Farnish explains his desire to see rampant population reduction in the name of saving the planet, with rhetoric chillingly similar to that contained in Lee’s online screed.

“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people,” he writes.

Another prominent figure in the climate change debate whose rhetoric mimics that of Lee is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

Lee’s manifesto also mimics similar talking points to those featured in White House science czar John Holdren’s Ecoscience textbook, which called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

Similarly, top environmentalist and creator of the Gaia hypothesis James Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet. Lee advocates the same dictatorial methods in his manifesto in order to stop people “giving birth to more filthy human children”.

With it still unknown at this time how many victims James J. Lee has claimed in pursuit of his radical eugenicist/environmentalist agenda, his actions mark a new watershed in truly understanding the threat of eco-fascist adherents of people like Al Gore who are willing to enforce their extremist beliefs with violence.

It just remains to be seen how the corporate media, which has continually pushed modern eugenics through the phony threat of global warming, will react to the shooting and whether they will be forced to acknowledge the fact that Lee’s beliefs mirror exactly those of top environmentalists who are promoting neo-eugenics as a means of saving the earth from the contrived threat of man-made climate change.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/eugenici...list-cult.html

[Civicsman]

Eugenicist Gunman Exposes Dark Side of the Environmentalist Cult

sheesh..... bloggers will apparently write anything to get noticed. Unfortunately, it seems to work.

The gunman was a nut case. He was a nut case who also considered himself an environmentalist.

Suggesting that he is representative of responsible environmentalism is similar to to suggesting that Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh (Salt Lake City bombers) were representatives of the conservative anti-big government movement. Like this guy, they were loonies.

The title says it is exposing the "dark side", but it drops it's pants on its own politics when it paints environmentalism with a broad brush as "the environmentalist cult". Right.

James J. Lee was a loon. His mental instability followed a particular path, for reasons we may never understand. To suggest that the actions of this person is somehow representative of any legitimate aspect of environmentalism is pretty loony as well.

To "writers" Paul Watson and Lachlan, I say, Seek professional counseling.

Darth, you should try at least try to be responsible in the stuff you post. The tin foil hat doesn't look good on you.

[KSagal]

Darth, good posts.

I too had heard it was only a matter of time before the Tim McVeigh comparisons would start, and of course, they have.

When a nut can be labeled as right wing by any stretch of the imagination, he will, and then will be called a representative and typical of Tea Party, and Lifers, and Birthers. Even if the right wing label has to be invented.

If a nut is clearly a left wing nut, then all the sudden he is a loner, or a loon who acted alone.

Unless of course, he is a left wing nut that does something that can be blamed upon the bigotry and hatred that the left demonstrates, yet attributes to the right. Maybe all that bigotry and hatred is what caused him to flip out.

[Civicsman]

OMG. Good posts?!

It appears, Karl, that you are trying to suggest that the actions of this individual are representative of the environmental movement and/or that he was acting in concert with others in his hostage-taking. I know how you hate it when I try to interpret your KEnglish, so spit it out. Readers here deserve to clearly understand the depths of your beliefs.

Despite your suggestion that the right-wing label "has to be invented", the anti-government views of McVeigh and Nichols are well documented and simply not in question. You likely never attended a Michigan Militia meeting, but I am pretty sure you would feel right at home.

However, the only comparison I made to Nichols and McVeigh is that they were individuals who were loons. I said they did NOT represent the conservative anti-government movement.

Read first, then write.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

... You likely never attended a Michigan Militia meeting, but I am pretty sure you would feel right at home...

Read first, then write.

Opinions are funny things. I have worn a uniform, and frequently vote to protect your right to say really stupid things like the above. I know it is your opinion, but it is about as ignorant as anything I have ever seen.

I do read, and much to your chagrin, hold you accountable to a small percentage of the very predictable talking points that you are so quick to repeat.

I know your comment about the Militia meeting was intended to insult and pigeon hole me as a particular type of person to the uninformed, but all it does is show that I have given you too much credit for the ability for rational discourse. I am sorry.

Have a nice day.

[Civicsman]

I know your comment about the Militia meeting was intended to insult and pigeon hole me as a particular type of person to the uninformed, but all it does is show that I have given you too much credit for the ability for rational discourse. I am sorry.

Uninformed? All readers have to do is a quick search to find out LOTS about you.

By your own statements, you are, "a bit of a wierdo nutjob. I am very politically conservative," and..."a true libertarian when it comes to the way people and the government should act toward the way people live their lives."

You "...feel that the government should stay out of people's lives, and let them do what they want without interferance"

You believe in"...robber barons (governments) [that] steal money to artificially inflate the cost of energy we used today to force us into less efficient energies of the future..."

You believe that an "elite group of self-assigned overlord" is trying to assert control over large masses of people.

Libertarians "oppose coercive authority, especially that of the state. Many libertarians support the non-aggression principle which holds individuals should not infringe upon the freedom of others. Some libertarians support a minimal state (or minarchist) position and others various non-state anarchist views, such as anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism."

Really, Karl, your anti-government views are not a matter of conjecture.

Similarly, the Michigan Militia "formed ... in response to perceived encroachments by the Federal Government on the rights of citizens". Members were alarmed by the use of force by Federal Government against citizens who had not committed any federal crimes, but were, in their view, targeted for simply having views contrary to those in government at the time. They were also concerned about curtailment of Second Amendment rights (guns). As an organization, I am not aware of any direct involvement in any illegal activity.

I think you have a lot in common with Militia members, and I'll say again that you would have felt right at home at a Michigan Militia meeting, commiserating the members and talkin' bad about the gummint. I did not suggest that you would blow up buildings. Maybe you didn't do any research on the Militia. It would not be the first time.

The point there (which you always have problems sticking with) is that McVeigh and Nichols WERE anti-government right-wingers, and there was no need for me to "invent" a right wing label, as you alleged. Nichols was known to have attended meetings of anti-government groups in his community, and that was most likely the Militia.

So, back to the question: It appears, Karl, that you are trying to suggest that the actions of [James Lee] are representative of the environmental movement and/or that he was acting in concert with others in his hostage-taking.

I know how you hate it when I try to interpret your KEnglish, so spit it out. Readers here deserve to clearly understand the depths of your beliefs.

Well?

[DarthSegVator]

Dear Civicsman,

I have seen you attack every post that you don't agree with...this is a typical liberal response.

Here is the playlist:


1) Attack the writer (of the article).

2) Attack the publisher (or news agency) as bias.

3) Attack the poster (or replyer).

This is all too familiar.

OH...by the way...I must be a (insert your own whatever).

BLAH BLAH BLAH - So done with you!

Can't wait 'till November!

[Civicsman]

I have seen you attack every post that you don't agree with...this is a typical liberal response.

Gosh, Darth, pretty much every post you make in the General Discussion sub-forum is an attack on something you don't agree with. Are you going to try to claim otherwise?

Segway Chat is a public forum. The Terms of Service specifically state, "It is not our intent to discourage Visitors or Members from taking controversial positions or expressing vigorously what may be unpopular views".

When a person makes a post espousing a "controversial position", they should expect a response. Do you seriously believe you can cut and paste your strongly-opinionated pieces and not get negative feedback?

You have the right to claim that I am providing the "typical liberal response", and post your generalized complaints about me, but you rarely respond to specific questions or comments about the stuff you post.

Take the post that you just responded to as an example. Obviously you didn't like it, as it prompted your comments, but what did I say in that post that was incorrect? As I re-read it just now, I see that it is spot-on. I responded to the allegations of KSagal that some readers were "uninformed" about the type of person he is by identifying his strong political leanings, quoting Karl himself. Are such truths a problem for you?

I go on to ask for clarification as to whether KSagal was implying (as he seemed to be, in an earlier post) that the actions of [hostage-taker James Lee] are representative of the environmental movement and/or that he was acting in concert with others in his hostage-taking. This is a legitimate request to clarify KSagal's apparent viewpoint. Knowing where a person stands on a given topic is important. As Karl himself pointed out, it is important to understand an individual's point of view, as this can very well cause them to ignore inconvenient truths.

Similarly, this is why I post information on the original authors of your posts. Knowing, for example, that an author is a raging bigot, might cause readers to consider the quality of his/her writing.

Another good example: You posted a claim that Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd caused the 2008/2009 financial crash. I asked how? You did not answer. Consequently, your post deserved skewering and I did it.

Going forward, I don't think you should expect anything less.

[Gihgehls]

I applaud Civicsman for actually trying to debate. There are three "debaters" I usually see on this forum. Darth just posts copypasta, Civicsman tries to get people to be accountable and clarify their position, and Karl just says "I don't need to explain myself, neener neener neener." I honestly don't know why Civicsman keeps trying. It must be like trying to teach quantum mechanics to a jar of nuts.