Exposed: Why Lovers of “Nature” Hate “Human-Nature”
Written by John (the other John).
Certain people label themselves as either “Extinction Rebellion”, or “tree huggers”, or “animal lovers”, or people just fighting climate change, in which the inference is that these people love nature and all of its species and natural wonders (whether birds, animals, plants, oceans, trees, people, etc…). These people will protest, block roads, attack other people, abuse a 16 year old mentally challenged child with ideas of apocalypse, etc…, all in the name of love of nature (thus love of the natural evolution of “nature”, free of human interference). So on the surface, these people are really good people, and we should model ourselves after them because we are horrible people (which is what I am told daily).
So based on the above, we can make the connection that the concept of natural evolution free of human interference would carryover into natural evolution of human-nature free of human interference. In other words, the natural evolution of humans and their individual talents would dictate the pyramid of those being more successful, intelligent, athletic, musically-gifted, breed with higher quality mates, etc.. What this means is that the most intelligent or most talented would (for example) earn the top University admissions and the top job assignments (and thus thrive), whilst the least talented people in each category would either get the lower positions (and thus earn less) or they would outright perish since they are unable to provide for themselves. With this natural evolution of humans, this would allow human-nature to flourish free of human interference. But is this what really occurs? No!
In reality, these same lovers of nature do the very opposite in relation to human-nature. They constantly interfere when it comes to it, whether it is with jobs, University positions, who we mate with, how we raise our children, school curriculum, our thoughts, etc… But why? Is this inconsistency an oversight? Or is it intentional? Or perhaps it is not an inconsistency at all, but perhaps it is something a bit more nefarious. So what is the missing-link between being pro-natural evolution of “nature”, whilst being anti-natural evolution of human-nature? Answer: POWER!
The common link that makes these two otherwise contradictory positions somehow become consistent has nothing to do with love or hate, nor of nature or humans; rather, it is all about power. And the method to attain power is by unnaturally increasing the size and scope of government, even by means of deception upon the people who they proclaim to love. So today, they want to enlarge government to allegedly allow nature to naturally evolve, and they want to enlarge government to allegedly allow untalented people to unnaturally evolve. But this is all a fraud; these positions they take are nothing more than a shell to disguise their pursuit of power. Unfortunately for them, this is nothing more than an illusion (or a delusion); just like humans cannot control mother-nature, similarly, humans cannot control human-nature.
(As a side note, if these people truly cared about nature, the environment, animals, etc…, then they would not be financing the trafficking of millions of third worlders from low-carbon emitting nations into high-carbon emitting nations. If anything, they should be financing the trafficking of people out of high-carbon emitting nations and into low-carbon emitting nations. But they don’t, because the third worlders equate to future voters, and thus power).
So based on the above, we can make the connection that the concept of natural evolution free of human interference would carryover into natural evolution of human-nature free of human interference. In other words, the natural evolution of humans and their individual talents would dictate the pyramid of those being more successful, intelligent, athletic, musically-gifted, breed with higher quality mates, etc.. What this means is that the most intelligent or most talented would (for example) earn the top University admissions and the top job assignments (and thus thrive), whilst the least talented people in each category would either get the lower positions (and thus earn less) or they would outright perish since they are unable to provide for themselves. With this natural evolution of humans, this would allow human-nature to flourish free of human interference. But is this what really occurs? No!
In reality, these same lovers of nature do the very opposite in relation to human-nature. They constantly interfere when it comes to it, whether it is with jobs, University positions, who we mate with, how we raise our children, school curriculum, our thoughts, etc… But why? Is this inconsistency an oversight? Or is it intentional? Or perhaps it is not an inconsistency at all, but perhaps it is something a bit more nefarious. So what is the missing-link between being pro-natural evolution of “nature”, whilst being anti-natural evolution of human-nature? Answer: POWER!
The common link that makes these two otherwise contradictory positions somehow become consistent has nothing to do with love or hate, nor of nature or humans; rather, it is all about power. And the method to attain power is by unnaturally increasing the size and scope of government, even by means of deception upon the people who they proclaim to love. So today, they want to enlarge government to allegedly allow nature to naturally evolve, and they want to enlarge government to allegedly allow untalented people to unnaturally evolve. But this is all a fraud; these positions they take are nothing more than a shell to disguise their pursuit of power. Unfortunately for them, this is nothing more than an illusion (or a delusion); just like humans cannot control mother-nature, similarly, humans cannot control human-nature.
(As a side note, if these people truly cared about nature, the environment, animals, etc…, then they would not be financing the trafficking of millions of third worlders from low-carbon emitting nations into high-carbon emitting nations. If anything, they should be financing the trafficking of people out of high-carbon emitting nations and into low-carbon emitting nations. But they don’t, because the third worlders equate to future voters, and thus power).
Posts
