Posted by
Catmman on Monday, October 26, 2009 4:49:55 PM
"
The planet has a fever."
- Al Gore
Did you know if you live in a Western Nation and have a child, that child is thirty percent more ecologically-evil than a child born in some Third World crap hole?
Did you know if you are a white, male, middle-class earner with kids you are the greatest ecological scourge ever witnessed by Gaia, second only to your white children and the asteroid which wiped out the dinosaurs?
Did you know more than two-thirds of the Earths surface is covered with water yet there are, somehow, water shortages?
Did you know progressives care about the poor so much they wish to keep them in poverty so they'll be more 'Green'?
Did you know apparently the a-hat who wrote
this article hasn't got the memo that Paul Ehrlich's so-called "
Population Bomb" (and all of its predictions) - was a dud?
According to the article's author, that 'fever' is white, Western children. This is the level of Leftist logic on this issue: We must save the planet for the children, by not having any. Population control is a must, particularly of white kids, or something.
This kind of ham-handed clap-trap has been around for at least 41 years. Yet lefty morons continue to spew this line from the rooftops. The same can be said for the lefty logic on Poverty. What is the mantra? Poverty is bad, right? This line of thought is the justification for every Liberal/Progressive "social-justice" project ever implemented. How many trillions of dollars worldwide have been spent to fight the "War on Poverty"? Everything about Poverty is bad - until you start using Poverty Newspeak on 'climate change'.
In the context of 'climate change' - poverty is
good. People who live in impoverished countries have a smaller carbon footprint. People in poverty are more ecologically 'in-tune' with Gaia. We shouldn't strive to lift the impoverished into a better quality of life. No. We should strive to make ourselves like the impoverished. We should shun all the contrivances which make our Western way of living so 'consumptive'.
See how far you'll get when your first step is too stop all the funding for any type of anti-poverty project. See how fast the hands will wring when you say your going to stop foreign aid to Africa. When the Progressives start their caterwauling, tell them to jump on the first donkey train to Africa and tell the impoverished they are on their own. It's all for the sake of Gaia you see. If they continue their hand-wringing, just tell them your doing your part to make them
more impoverished. After all, wouldn't them being
more poor also make them
more ecologically friendly? Wouldn't their carbon footprints be even
smaller without the evil carbon producing subsidies from oppressive Westerners? To borrow from Ayn Rand -
blank out!
Justifying 'climate change' measures in this way isn't the only flaw in the Leftard logic. How exactly does saving the planet "for the children" work if we aren't having any? If we aren't going to have children, then who the hell cares about what the condition of the planet is in a hundred years? There won't be any kids around to burn up, so what's the point in bankrupting ourselves now? Again,
blank out!
Of course I'm laying on the sarcasm pretty thick. The author's real point is that: Rich = Bad. Middle Class = Bad. White = Bad. High Quality of Life = Bad. Western = Bad. It's all over his article, right down to advocating that even one less British child makes room for thirty sub-Saharan kids and the planet will still be a 'cleaner' place. The guy makes no bones. He couldn't be more loathing of his own countrymen. Not all British kids are rich (the 'Rich' being the primary climate demon to this guy) but still he advocates for fewer British children. To this idiot, the poorest British child's life isn't worth it.
I'm going to be crass with my next comment. There is a picture of Mr. Renton with a small, white child on his
website. I mention the race of the child simply because Mr. Renton seems to have such qualms about white kids. I don't know who the child is in relation to Mr. Renton, other than he must have
some fondness for the child to be pictured in such a way and have said picture posted to his website. You probably already know where I'm going with this, so there is no need for me to elaborate. I'll simply ask:
You first, Mr. Renton?