EIR NEWS SERVICE Editorial Opinion: JEREMY RIFKIN RUSHES TO SOVIET AID ON EM WEAPONS RESEA

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

EIR NEWS SERVICE Editorial Opinion: JEREMY RIFKIN RUSHES TO SOVIET AID ON EM WEAPONS RESEARCH ---------------------------------- by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. -----PRECIS----- A Gordon Wilson item in the 12 April WASHINGTON POST reports efforts to shut down U.S. EM-weapons research by Jeremy Rifkin's "The Foundation on Environmental Trends." The Soviets, who have avowed that whichever power first controls EM weapons rules the planet, are proceeding full-steam with their own efforts in this direction. Yet, Rifkin et al. persist, despite such warnings; are they acting wittingly in Soviet interests? -------------- LEESBURG, April 12 (EIRNS)--As announced in a Washington Post item of April 12, circles associated with anti-science huckster Jeremy Rifkin are at it again, this time moving to strip the U.S.A. of all defense against the new super-weapons being developed at a breakneck pace in Moscow. The weapons in question are called "radio-frequency" or, better named, "electromagnetic" systems. Although the technologies involved do have major weapons applications, they are also vital parts of present effects to discover new cures for many pestilences and illnesses, including such killers as cancer and AIDS. It is possible that no cure for AIDS could ever be discovered, except with crucial help from a branch of electromagnetic-radiation research called "non-linear spectroscopy." Next, we might hear from Rifkin, that EM research ought to be closed down because it represents a threat to the HIV virus. Absurd? Where does one draw the line between snail-darters and insects, on the one side, and bacteria and viruses on the other? Some insects, such as mosquitoes, have an entirely negative impact. At the same time, there is no more efficiently mass-killer of human beings than a lack of scientific and technological progress. Millions of people have already died directly because of the "environmental impact" of the kinds of measures successfully imposed by malthusian fanatics including Rifkin. Perhaps it is time that Rifkin's Foundation for Economic Trends be obliged to file as an agent of the Soviet government. That filing might be debated; there should be no debating the fact, that Rifkin's foundation ought to inform us how it intends to compensate the millions of HIV-infected persons who will almost surely die if Rifkin's motion prevails. In a strict interpretation of "environmental impact," the Foundation's chief activity ought to be to shut itself down. Every informed person ought to be in favor of improving the environment for human beings. In fact, Rifkin typifies those who misuse the term "environment" to mean the direct opposite to what our national policy ought to be. A fresh interpretation, and probably amendment of the NEPA is overdue. Rifkin & The "Anti-Christ" Jeremy Rifkin hardly ranks as a candidate for the post of "Anti-Christ," but whoever that latter evil personage might prove to be, Rifkin is certainly among his disciples. This is no exaggeration; it is quite literally the case. The "Anti-Christ" is the Syrian cult of the Magis, which recruited the Roman Octavian (later, Augustus Caesar) at a meeting held on the Isle of Capri, and backed Octavian against Antony and Cleopatra, establishing Rome as the capital of the fusion of Rome's, Egypt's, and Syria's domains into the empire of the Roman legions. For a time, Octavian and his heirs were quite literally the embodiment of the Anti-Christ. It was the Magi-steered Emperor Tiberius, from his cult- center on Capri, who ordered the execution of Jesus Christ, and whose nephew-in-law, Pontius Pilate, carried out the order, to go down in history as the prototype of the modern government bureaucrat who protests "Nothing personal, just carrying out orders." The cult of the Anti-Christ was established as a religious movement by a member of the Magi, the notorious Simon Magus. The dogma of this cult, called Gnosticism, is traced by most modern Gnostics to a second-century B.C. follower of Simon Magus, the notorious Basilides. Jeremy Rifkin is a Gnostic. So was the Swiss psychoanalyst C. G. Jung. So were the theosophist cronies of the evil Bertrand Russell among the followers of Lucifer-worshipper Aleister Crowley. The general line common among these Gnostics is that Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross, but that a substitute was used, while Christ is alleged to have married Mary Magdalene and gone off to sire generations of blood-line illuminati. Adolf Hitler, like the Richard Wagner of Parisfal, adhered to such a cult, and spent a fortune searching for the mythical Holy Grail in southeastern France. The mythical Grail is a leading symbol of the cult. Hitler also sent fat, cocaine-sniffing Hermann Goering to Capri, to attempt to buy the emperor Tiberius palace-site, claiming that Hitler was the reincarnation of the Tiberius who ordered the slaying of Christ. Whether Rifkin himself adheres to such obnoxious stuff, is almost irrelevant; he acts as if he did. During the relevant period, these Gnostics produced a counterfeit Bible, known as the Gnostic Bible. This text was recently translated at Harvard Divinity School, and is now being taught to the illuminati among the faculty and student body at Yale. Shall we may anticipate a novel crop of ministers, rabbis, and priests from those precincts? Since the days of Aaron Burr's Jonathan Edwards' "Great Awakening," up and down the Connecticut River Valley, we raised in New England are accustomed to curiously obnoxious religious innovations from the relevant liberal precincts thereabouts. Among the peculiar features of this Anti-Christ worshipper's version of the Bible is a destruction of the famous 28th Verse of the First Chapter of Genesis: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." King James' Version. The destruction of that fundamental tenet of Judeo-Christian belief is the Gnostic's cause which Rifkin has made his life's work. This is the Gnostic's devotion of that heathen cult named The Foundation on Economic Trends. This is no mere coincidence. The modern "environmentalist" cults which yield such diabolical fanatics as Rifkin were conceived and set into motion by avowed Gnostics includ ing the followers and associates of theosophist Lucifer-worshipper Aleister Crowley. As Stanford Research Institute's Marilyn Ferguson documents in her advocacy of this connection, in her , it was the Gnostic mystical Brotherhood of such as Oxford University's John Ruskin, Crowley, and the Fabian circles of the pro-genocidalist Bertrand Russell and of H. G. Wells, who implanted modern "neo-malthusianism" in North America and Western Europe. On religious grounds, therefore, every Christian and Jew will shy from an abomination such as Rifkin and his crowd, pretty much as Adolf Hitler was to be shunned. However, since our law prohibits any established church, how do such considerations bear upon the shaping of the public policy of the United States? The principles of natural law written into the intent of the Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution, show the proper connection. What Rifkin proposes is directly contrary to the original clear intent of U.S. constitutional law. U.S. constitutional law is defined chiefly by two documents, the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution. The latter changed nothing of the former, except to establish a Federal Union and the form of government suited to that purpose. It is the Declaration of Independence which premises the independent existence of the United States on an appeal to the authority of a body of natural law. a body of law higher in authority than any man-made law of government or international treaty. Since the beginning of the present century, more emphatically, and since the appointment of Fabian fellow-traveler Oliver Wendell Holmes as Chief Justice of the Federal Court, there has been an insistent defiance of the plain language of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, to the degree that the conduct of legal process today bears faint resemblance to any rational principle upheld by the republic's founders. The drift in law is the Romantic irrationalism of Berlin's Karl Savigny, the dogma which Savigny's student, Karl Marx copied in formulating what he called "historical materialism." The question which the modern practice of law-making poses to its critics, is a sneering: "Natural law does not exist. It is we who make the law and the judicial decisions. Can you critics show me an agency with the power to defy our right to say the law is whatever we choose to say it is." The answer to that sneering challenge is, "Yes. We can point to a marvellously efficient agency which destroys any nation which persists in violating natural law, as the two roman empires were each destroyed in succession, by no other agency than this one." The liberals may insist, that the choice of belief in God is a purely arbitrary matter of personal taste; it were better to choose the God whose natural law has the inherent power to destroy entire nations which persist in violating that law. It was never intended by the founders of our republic that the separation of state from church should be construed as indifference to Christian natural law, as the precedent of St. Augustine's defines this, and as Nicolaus of Cusa elaborated this for modern society later. Although some of those founders, like Thomas Jefferson, were influenced by the eighteenth-century materialist "enlightenment," the central current of American eighteenth-century republicanism was defined with direct efficiency by Boston's Cotton Mather, as most of the crucial features of our independence were already prefigured by the pre-Andros Massachusetts Bay Colony. Our republic's attitude toward religion's influence on public policy was not atheistic (agnosticism was invented by Charles Darwin's Thomas Huxley during the mid-ninteenth century). It was Christian ecumenicism extending its fraternity to Judaism in such fashion as the history of Jewry in eighteenth century America attests. The point of distinction, is that it is not allowed that the shaping of our public policy be governed by the specific dogmas of any religious denomination, but only upon principles of natural law traditional to Judeo-Christian belief. The policy-shaper must not argue from Scripture or catechism. The policy-shaper must rely upon an appeal to reason, by aid of an intelligible representation of the facts and calculable consequences of either a policy or the omission of a proposed policy. In other words, if the instruction of the 28th Verse of Genesis I is valid, we can not merely assert this on the authority of a reading of the Scripture. If our reading of that Scripture is true, then, particularly given the long history of mankind's existence, our reading must be demonstrably true in those latter terms of reference. The factual basis for this proof of our point against Rifkin is overwhelming, to the point that there exists no fact or omission will permits reasonable doubt. A society which follows Rifkin's secularized Gnostic dogmas will be destroyed as a consequence of doing so, as the two Romes brought about their own destruction before us. A society which accepts Rifkin's Gnostic dogma will be shown in the course of history to have been destroyed because it was not morally fit to exist. Hypothetically, you might escape the fuller measure of penalty for your sins on that account; your grandchildren would bear the full penalty. Unfortunately, after twenty-five years of full-blown unleashing of the counterculture, and twenty years of "environmentalism," the time of our grandchildren's suffering is about now. If we wish our nation to continue to exist, there is little time to rid ourselves of the influence of the Rifkins and their ilk upon the shaping of our national policy. Progress & Survival What were then named the "new sciences" of ethnology, sociology, and modern psychology were invented by the nineteenth century positivists, with the French Disease of Ethnology reaching our shores, as the future anthropology, during the 1840s. Since the beginnings of American anthropology under the patronage of the treasonous Albert Gallatin, anthropologists, generally speaking, have been terrible hoaxsters and liars, from Lewis Henry Morgan through Dame Margaret Mead. Exemplary is the insistence of these creatures that we must rue the fall of Aztec culture, one whose heart-rending religious practices might have been the envy of an Adolf Hitler. There is no doubt, after scrutiny of Jeremy Rifkin's recently published writings, that he has swallowed the dogmas of these anthropologists, and depends upon them to a considerable degree for his current batch of anti-science sophistries. Since we are implicitly obliged to refute Rifkin's argument in part on its own terms, we begin our proof with a reference to one of the favorite dogmas of the anthropologists: the assertion that the original form of human society was a "simple hunting-and-gathering society" fit to delight the deranged sexual fantasies of a Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is elementary to show, that given this planet in a wilderness state, an average of approximately ten square kilometers of land-area were required to sustain the life of an average member of such an hypothetical form of "primitive society." This would set an upper limit to human existence on this planet, at approximately ten millions individuals. The state of culture possible for such a society would satisfy the most radical of the utopian fantasies found among modern "environmentalists." The average life-expectancy among surviving infants, would be significantly less than twenty years. The mental and moral life of the members of such a society would compare precariously to that of troops of chimpanzees and baboons. According to last Summer's reports, the population of this planet now exceeds five billions persons. Granted, most of those subsist in reduced circumstances, often precarious ones. If we but assume that the levels of technology well-established by the earliest 1970s were made generally available to all nations, that would suffice to sustain perhaps fifteen billions persons at an average standard of living comparable to that of western Europe or the United States about 1970. On the frontiers of present developments in science, we are elaborating new technologies which will increase the per-capita productivity and income of the average U.S. person by about ten-fold during two generations. We have in sight, beyond that, more advanced technologies which are adequate to increase the per-capita productivity a hundred-fold above present levels by the close of the next century. By that latter time, the human population of Mars, for example, will have reached a level of at least the tens of millions, while the great deserts of this planet have been transformed into habitable, fertile gardens. Thus, if we assumed that the anthropologist's "primitive hunting-and-gathering society" ever existed as a naturally occurring form of original society, we would say that by 1987 mankind had increased human potential population-density a thousand-fold--three orders of magnitude in decimal terms, and is in reach of raising that to a hundred-thousand-fold--five orders of magnitude. This points to a most fundamental distinction setting mankind absolutely above, and distinct from the beasts. The obvious evidence of this distinction, is that mankind has increased its raw potential population-density by three orders of magnitude above the hypothetical "hunting and gathering" level, whereas no beast could increase its by even a small fraction of a single order of magnitude. Looking at all that is known factually of past human existence, including archeological evidence, the increase of mankind's raw potential population-density is due chiefly to what we may term retrospectively "scientific and technological progress" --precisely what Rifkin works to terminate. This increase has the following four leading features: (1) The increase of the physical value of an average market- basket of consumption, and an accompanying increase in life-expectancy of surviving infants. (2) A shift, in percentiles of total labor-force, from rural to urban labor, and a shift in percentiles of the urban labor-force, from production of households' goods to production of capital goods. (3) A shift both in the amount of usable energy consumed per-capita and per-square-kilometer, and in the tem- perature-equivalent of energy applied to the point of work. (4) Those kinds of advances in the internal organization of powered tools, machines, and analogous processes, which enable mankind to employ increased amounts of energy per-capita and per-hectare efficiently, and to increase the net work accomplish with an average unit of energy consumed so. This latter change in the organization of the powered productive process is the raw definition of technological process. The preceding, cited constraints, are the preconditions for continuance of employment of more advanced technologies. This increase in the raw potential population-density of mankind--by, apparently, more than a thousand-fold thus far, is attributable entirely to the uniqueness of the human individual's mental-creative processes. Through the development of those mental-creative potentials of the individual, not only do we develop persons capable of generating valid fundamental discoveries in physical science; we also develop, more generally, persons able to assimilate these discoveries efficiently. Thus, mankind is able to change its behavior in a way no beast can do; thus, all efforts to explain human psychology and human behavior from the vantage-point of studies of animal behavior, are intrinsically absurd. Throughout this process, man is bound by relative limits to natural resources. For the most part, mankind's technological progress increases the fertility of land, and so forth. However, some resources become either scarcer, or relatively more costly to develop. We overcome such relative limits through technological progress; we develop so new kinds of resources, and are enabled to use economically the old kinds of resources. If we ever ceased to effect technological progress, the human cost, in labor, of sustaining per-capita existence would increase. So, the standard of living, and culture would decline, and, at the same time, the raw potential population-density of mankind would decline. This is precisely what caused the erosion, leading to the fall of both the empires of Rome and Byzantium. Indeed, most among what anthropologists identify as original or relatively primitive cultures of this planet are shown by the acheological and anthropological data themselves to be, like the famous "digger indians" of California, but the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries' polynesians, too, degenerate offshoots of a failed higher level of culture. So, the post-1,000 B.C. Mayans could not have developed the urban cultures of the Maya cities; rather, after approximately 1,000 B.C., there appears to have been a rather catastrophic collapse of previously established levels of civilization, with the once-leading "tla"-speakers degenerating into the savage ancestors of the Aztecs met by Cortez. Generally, long before the earliest archeological evidence of lunar calendars, solar astronomical calendars existed with what are, for line-of-eyesight observation, very sophisticated astronomical cyclical features. The progress of mankind's increase in raw potential population-density has not been a gradual or consistent one; what we have achieved so far is the net result of alternating successes and failures. What must necessarily bring about the collapse of any culture, less predominantly external causes, is a shift in cultural paradigm which causes the culture to abandon the practice of generalized technological progress. That is precisely what has been happening, most conspicously, to the United States during, most emphatically, the recent twenty years since the fiscal budget of 1966-1967. However much our cultural vigor was eroded up to the 1960s, our cultural paradigm was approximately the most successful on this planet. Beginning the interval between 1963 and 1968, we began to shift our prevailing cultural paradigm, under the growing influence of neo-malthusian dogmas, to a form of culture which is inherently unfit to survive. Thus far, our argument would seem to be, that scientific and technological progress are indispensable means for increasing the standard of living and life-expectancies, and enabling societies to survive. It might be argued, that such a view degrades the individual to the role of necessary labor, a labor which must necessarily increase its productives if it is to succeed in that mission. There is also an opposite view of this matter. The ability of the individual to generate valid fundamental discoveries in physical science demands extension of the period of education of the young through the secondary levels and into higher learning. The same kinds of changes are indispensable if labor is to be able to assimilate advanced technologies efficiently. If education is directed to the principal purpose of fostering the development of the mental-creative powers as such, the result is a higher quality of individual personality, higher because of increased distance from the hedonistic irrationality of the beasts. From this standpoint, it would appear that the purpose of increasing the raw potential population-density through technological progress, is to enable the average person to become less bestial, more human. From the standpoint of some leading Christian theologians, such as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa, the comprehension of the Creator's laws less imperfectly satisfies our yearning to lessen the imperfection in the attempted congruence of our will to that of the Creator. We become thus less imperfectly in the image of the living God. Eliminate the dichotomy between the two views of the matter; unify both as a single, functionally interdependent conception. Labor informed by technological progress, and labor committed to the good, is not merely an appendage of the productive process, but rather the productive process is also an appendage of the development of the individual person as less imperfectly human. It is our humanity of which Jeremy Rifkin would deprive, and that together with the cruelest circumstances imposed upon our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Thus, such Scriptural injunctions as the famous 28th Verse of Genesis I are written not only in the Bible, but also in the galaxies and in the history of mankind to date. Rifkin's dogmas are neither new in history, nor do they date only from the wicked Magi. Scripture speaks of the Whore of Babylon, the mother of he (e.g., the Magi) who wears the mark of the beast. This Whore is the Chaldean lunar earth-mother goddess Ishtar, the semitic name for the Sahkti of the Dravidian colonists of Sumer. She is also known as Athtar, Astarte, Cybele, and Isis. Her Dravidian consort, the phallus-god Siva, is also known as Baal, Osiris, Satan, and Dionysos, and in such variants as Apollo and Lucifer. In every well-known case of the collapse of civilizations, wholly or substantially, in the region of Near and South Asia, and the Mediterranean littoral, a cultural paradigm of the sort specific to such offshoots of the Shakti cult was the human causal factor. Gnosticism is but the paradigmatic guise in which these "Babylonian" cults persisted during the Christian Era. Rifkin's secular Gnosticism typifies the essence of these. We have a choice: persist in tolerating the kind of anti-science "environmentalism" represented by Rifkin, or survive as a nation. The United States has become an endangered species, and Rifkin is among the pollutants responsible for the threatened catastrophe. The Soviets & Malthusianism The continued influence of Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski merely typify, as better known cases, the fact that U.S. policy-making is incapable of serious strategic thinking. I do not wish to pick on Kissinger of Brzezinski gratuitously, nor do I wish to imply that they are even the most important figures in relevant aspects of policy-shaping. I am merely encumbered by the fact that they are the best-known of the names at hand. To wit: the combined exertions of offense and defense required to secure victory in a strategic conflict, represent a combined allotment of efforts, not less than eighty percent of which total is properly devoted to cultural efforts in culture, physical economy, and politics, and not more than twenty percent to military efforts as such. If we accept the Soviets' cultural standpoint, theirs is the correct form of strategic planning, and ours is not. If one wishes to conquer a nation, prudence, even Soviet shrewdness dictates that it were more effective if we first weaken a nation to the point it might be either conquered more assuredly or induced to submit with no more than a whimper. The most effective way to accomplish this, from a Soviet vantage-point, is to weaken the western economies while also weakening the western political will to resist. The interconnections of "environmentalism," "post- industrial" utopianism, and the rock-drug-sex young counterculture, centered upon the drug-culture, have shown their efficiency in serving the Soviet cause. The question is, to what degree is this process of erosion of our culture our own doing, and how much has it been caused by direct steering from the Soviet government? To a large degree, the ideas of neo-malthusianism and the counterculture, as they are encountered today, are much older than the Soviet state, and significantly older that the origins of Bolshevism itself. Predominantly, they originated within the West, from the stratum which we have identified by the label "The Aquarians:" Ruskin, Nietzsche, Crowley, et al. However, by no later than 1962, the Soviet government resolved to exploit these self-destructive influences inside the West; by 1967-1968, under KGB chief Yuri Andropov, the Soviet orchestration of international narco-terrorism was in full swing. In a "secret address" of 1962, at the hottest point of the Sino-Soviet conflict, Soviet General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev praised Mao Tse Tung as making a fundamental contribution to the conflict with the U.S.A., in using China's drug-weapon against the U.S., during the period of the Korean War, and again, during the early 1960s. Khrushchev vowed then that the Soviets would not be left behind in this matter. Andropov's role in launching coordinated international narco-terrorism, largely through Syria, beginning 1967, reflects the continuation of Khrushchev's drug-war policy under Brezhnev. About the same time that Andropov was coordinating the integrated narco-terrorist operations, a complementary channel of opportunity was opened to Moscow through the founders of the malthusian Club of Rome, Britain's Dr. Alexander King and Solly Zuckermann. One outgrowth of this was the establishment of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) at Laxenberg, Austria, with support from the U.S. Ford Foundation's McGeorge Bundy, in cooperation with the Soviet KGB. In Moscow itself, the relevant institution was the Institute for Global Systems Analysis, with connections not only to IIASA and the Club of Rome, but also with active links to Kaldor's circles as Britain's Cambridge University, in King's College and the Apostles. About the same time--1966-1968, Soviet intelligence assets among nominally "Marxist" organizations in various nations began dropping as much of their Marxian rhetoric as was needed to move with more or less full energy into the causes of "environmentalism" and "leftist" support for the rock-drug-sex counterculture. This included the Socialist International. At first, this was characteristic of the "youth affiliates" of such lefist organizations, plus a variety of "Marxist" intellectuals retooled for the undertaking. It became more generalized as the leftist youth leaders of the 1960s became the left celebrities of the 1970s and 1980s. Case in point is the West Germany Green Party, a radical malthusian cult directly funded by Moscow through East Germany funds conduited via the Communist Party of West Germany, and through other channels, too. This party, now commanding more than five percent of the vote, is the political umbrella and cheering-section for sundry riotous projects run under immediate direction of Soviet GRU (military intelligence) agents. Yet, the Green Party is also an area in which well-known western intelligence figures play a prominent role, either directly within, or through de facto channels of cooperation and support. In intelligence parlance, the Green Party is a "derivative operation." By that, one signifies an operation which is an asset of both western and Soviet intelligence services, without being entirely one or the other. Rifkin's operations are such a "derivative operation." This is shown by the pattern of his targetting of specific Soviet strategic objectives inside the U.S.A., as he has done in the case of EM weapons- research. Weaken the agro-industrial potential of the U.S., most emphatically those interests tied to patriotic traditionalist political forces and the "military-industrial complex" in particular. Weaken the military. At the same time, stage a relentless effort to search out and destroy every important area of scientific research, preferably while it is still in the hatching-stage and thus relatively most vulnerable. Is Jeremy Rifkin a counterintelligence problem? Yes. Short of catching him red-handed in violation of laws, what should we do about his activities? Essentially, recognize them for what they are, shun his efforts as one shuns the proffers of a prostitute--for those not otherwise persuaded, we add, especially a suspected IV drug-user in this era of the HIV virus. In a political democracy, all sorts of obnoxious rhetoric must be tolerated, simply because it is dangerous to entrust the determination of "obnoxious" to enforcement agencies. In this case, the determination of obnoxiousness is objective: Rifkin represents a foul, proximately satanic influence, which, if tolerated, assures the destruction of this nation. Do you wish our nation to survive; then, do not allow his influence to penetrate our policy-shaping. The Environment Beyond Rifkin as such, our economy, as well as our national defense will be crippled as long as the present trend of interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) persists. "Clean environment," with "clean water," "clean air," and lucious foliage abounding, are seductive imageries. Properly defined, they are not only desirable conditions, but indispensable ones. The trouble is, the way in which these goals have been interpreted, is contrary to all sense. From a sane standpoint, as distinct from an "environmentalist" one, the United States is becoming an environmental nightmare. Essentially, the basic economic infrastructure of the suburban and urban areas, and national infrastructure as a whole, has been in a net state of decay, now bordering upon rot, since 1970. Approximately $4 trillions must be spent, even to bring basic economic infrastructure up to 1970 levels of quality. Savage lowering of the income margins of farms and industries, and obstruction of adequate and clean sources of increased energy-supplies, is miring us in filth. Typical, during a period in which industrial indexes have been collapsing, "environmentalists" claim that industry has created a threat to the trees. Closer examination shows that tree-death is either simply a repetition of cycles older than the industrial revolution, or a result of undernourishment (lack of fertilization!) of depleted soils. As always, the spread of bankruptcy and misery around the nation, all in the name of --now--"sixty-five months of uninterrupted recovery," produces filth and decay, as bankrupting of once-prosperous farms produces dust-bowls, and as bankrupting of industry and spread of misery among increasing rations of the general population must always produce filth and decay. In sum, the chief environmental dangers come not from industries', laboratories', or the Pentagon's doing that to which Rifkin vociferously objects. The chief danger to the environment comes from measures which Rifkin and his ilk applaud: shutting down energy production, and productive employment generally. Before Rifkin opens his mouth again, he should be obliged to undergo a strict Environmental Impact Study on the consequences of his characteristic activities. Otherwise, by successfully eliminating about five billions persons from the present levels of human population. Rifkin's policies might bring us into that Rousseauvian utopia, a "primitive hunting and gathering society," which is the logical end-result of Rifkin's course of action.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank