Much has been said about Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” as it related to last week’s attempted terrorist attack by James J. Lee on the Discovery Channel headquarters. Much less has been said about the book he referred to by Daniel Quinn titled “Ishmael”. Get to know it and you will know much about a movement that may be much bigger than you imagine.
At this point, you may be wondering why we should have any concern with a small segment of people who believe this stuff? Well, it’s not such a small segment and some of them are in very powerful places. This is a similar line of thinking to those with the money and power to act on their vision, including Al Gore, Ted Turner, James Cameron, Van Jones, Oprah Winfrey, Maurice Strong, Robert Muller, Mikhail Gorbachev and many, many more. There are ample examples of their associations and actions along these lines.
Although other followers of “Ishmael” may not choose to take a crazy, terrorist path to enact their ideology, the ideology itself isn’t really much different from the ranting manifesto you may have read by Lee. Hating on humans (especially white, male ones) is very much in vogue and “Ishmael” is one of their favorite sources.
Ishmael, a telepathic and enlightened gorilla, divides mankind into two groups, the Takers and the Leavers. In a nutshell, the Takers are those (white European men) who developed more sophisticated methods of agricultural to fill their never ending need to consume. The more they produced, the more they populated. Their insatiable greed caused them to invade the peaceful Leaver lands, taking and destroying anything in their way. The Leavers had lived in a more hunter-gatherer way, worshiping the goddess and taking only what they needed. They were the true pathway to a peaceful, balanced world.
Just a few thoughts from “Ishmael” the all-knowing gorilla:
On his theory that advancements in agriculture exacerbate overpopulation:
Increasing food production to feed an increased population results in yet another increase in population.
On his false theory that the natural world only takes what it will eat and leaves the rest:
Okay. As I make it out, there are four things the Takers do that are never done in the rest of the community, and these are all fundamental to their civilizational system. First, they exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors’ territories and preempt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat.
Next, the Takers systematically destroy their competitors’ food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone.
On the theory that takers starve the world:
Next, the Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you’re eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, ‘This gazelle is mine,’ but you can’t say, ‘All the gazelles are mine.’ The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn’t defend the herd as its own.
On white man’s hateful, destructive tendencies:
Again . . . Our policy is: Every square foot of this planet belongs to us, so if we put it all under cultivation, then all our competitors are just plain out of luck and will have to become extinct. Our policy is to deny our competitors access to all the food in the world, and that’s something no other species does.