Conspiracy Theories 101 Series

Part 7 of 12:

The Environmental Movement

Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 1 of 12: Introduction
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 2 of 12: The Deep State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 3 of 12: Conspiracy Theorists
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 4 of 12: Pedophile Rings
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 5 of 12: The Surveillance State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 6 of 12: The Banking State
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 7 of 12: The Environmental Movement
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 8 of 12: Breaking Up the Family Unit
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 9 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Women
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 10 of 12: The Conspiracy Against Visible Minorities
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 11 of 12: The Media
Conspiracy Theories 101 Series Part 12 of 12: The Stigma of Being a Conspiracy Theorist


By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 10, 2017

Conspiracy Theories 101 Series

Full resolution jpg


*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.


*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).


*Note: I use the term liberal trifecta to refer to liberals in general, liberal/progressive/neo-liberal media outlets, and Democrats.


Climate Change

Population Control



Climate Change

I've already written so much about the ideological unfalsifiable junk science of man-made climate change in the following articles:


Leonardo DiCaprio's Before the Flood Completely Debunked

Years of Living Dangerously Series Debunked, Season 1

Years of Living Dangerously Series Debunked, Season 2

Climate Change Cult Disconnect

The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series


I don't want to repeat myself (though I'm sure that I will). I recommend reading these articles first. I'll mention a few new tidbits in this article.


In case you missed it, man-made climate change is now seen as the harbinger of death and that humans should be ashamed of their carbon lifestyles. As usual liberals are the first to fall for this indoctrination. Why? Because liberals act as cheerleaders for mainstream science and Big Pharma.


Sure, they'll criticize Big Pharma once in a while, but when they're in chronic pain, they'll turn to Big Pharma instead of natural health. Why? Because they're not intelligent enough to recognize their own bullsh*t.


While conservatives definitely have a lot of bullsh*t fogging up their perception of reality (Christianity), liberals clog up their perception of reality with atheism, political correctness, and the mentality, if it feels good, just do it.


In 2017, the GSIG climate change message has already reached every level of society (even school children). Today, children are indoctrinated at home, on TV, and in school about the coming carbon apocalypse if we don't stop living a carbon intensive lifestyle.


It's a good thing that children have short attention spans and forget about such nonsense during recess instead of being depressed and drugged with Big Pharma. And don't kid yourself, many children from liberal parents are being drugged on a regular basis. Why? Because they believe that Big Pharma has the answers. Why? Because they're liberal atheists. Hence, they believe that their lives have no intrinsic purpose.


As a small tangent, did you know that if you ask the question WHY enough times for any claim, you’ll always reach the exact same answer of because that's the way it is. Try any question, any question at all…about god, evolution, physics, climate change, relationships, or politics. Go deep enough and the answer will always be...because that's the way it is (see Philosophy of Knowledge in Philosophy Reborn Part I: Purpose).


Getting back to the issue, climate change believers constantly show tree rings and coral fossils as examples of man-made climate change. Sorry, but that only shows the evidence for natural changes in climate.


Go back prior to 200 years ago in tree rings or coral fossils and you'll still see evidence of changes in climate and extreme weather. How is that possible when there are no significant sources of carbon dioxide or methane 200 years ago? Because the changes are natural.


As you should already know by now, the Earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age (around 13,000) years ago. There's no significant man-made carbon dioxide or methane emissions from 13,000 years ago to about the 1800s. And yet, extreme whether still occurs. How? Because of natural Earth changes.


Climate change believers can't rationally claim that excess carbon dioxide and methane equals extreme weather in the present but not in the past. Rationality forbids such a claim. But then again, most climate change believers aren’t rational people. They're just acting based on their ideologies (like everyone else).


When climate change believers can't make a rational argument of causation, they fudge the claims with bad science. Excess carbon dioxide and methane is responsible for extreme weather. Word manipulation at its best.


But the liberal trifecta will never understand this. They're forever locked into their liberal conditioning and defense of dogmatic science. They'll protect the ideological junk science of climate change just as they've protected ideological science in the past (eugenics, male superiority, hair analysis, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease).


It's unfortunate that the environmental movement has lost itself as it morphed into the climate change movement.


As a side tangent, I'm only now realizing that 99% of so called environmentalists or climate change believers won't pick up garbage from the sidewalk grass. I know this because I'm the one who's picking it up. I don't mean paper. That will degrade naturally. I mean McDonalds cups, water bottles, plastic bags, chip bags, chewing bar wrappers and such. None of that is going to degrade naturally.


Did you know that some people put their dog's waste in a plastic bag and then leave that plastic bag in the grass? I only know this because I'm the one that's picking it up between 2-4am in a middle class neighborhood. This is a neighborhood where a 3 bedroom detached house sells for almost $1 million (CAD).


And sometimes cars pass by when I'm picking up garbage. They probably think that I'm homeless as I pick up after middle class *sswipes. Why do I do it? Because this is my planet as well. Being born on the Earth gives me a stake in the planet's well being. While climate change cult believers obsess over carbon dioxide, they downgrade all other environmental issues. That's not accidental. That's intentional.


Hence, most climate change believers and environmentalists will leave garbage on the ground. Why? It's not their problem. It's on city property. Or I'm too busy. And this touches on the white privileged status of the climate change movement. If you're in the climate change movement, chances are that you’re white and middle class.


Out of a few thousand people in the neighborhood, not a single person other than me does this. Why not? Because these people don't actually care about the Earth.


These people only support the climate change movement because it's the dominant ideology. It's popular to say that I support climate change. More often than not, climate change believers are only interested in their lifestyle of convenience. And it's not convenient to pick up someone else's garbage.


Liberals, climate change believers, and environmentalists won't pick up garbage on their daily power walk, but they'll shame you if you don't take action on climate change. These people/groups/cult members will use apocalyptic fear mongering to get you to take action on climate change, but they won't pick up trash when walking.


Allow me to be clear. These people are fakes. Don't bother talking to them. They've gone too deep down the climate change rabbit hole.


Generally speaking, you shouldn't be getting any advice on the environment from climate change believers, liberals, or environmentalists unless they practice five things:


1. Live in an apartment or condo

2. Use electric cars (to the exclusion of gas/diesel cars)

3. Practice a minimalist lifestyle

4. Change their diet to vegan (not vegetarian)

5. Have a maximum of one biological child (but no limit on adopted children).


If such people don't have the above characteristics, just walk away. Anything you say will have zero effect on them. Just walk away. You can’t help them. Maybe various gods/God can help them...but you can't.


As a human, you need to be practical and know when to cut your losses. If it means cutting them out of your life, do it. Yes, family is great, but when such people are indoctrinating your child/children to believe in climate change as a core ideology, you need to draw the line somewhere.


As someone who advocates organic backyard gardening, it's hilarious and tragic to watch the climate change movement go in circles. Even the most hardcore climate change believers that pass the five qualifications above know that their efforts are futile. Why? Because the entire WE infrastructure is run on diesel/jet fuel.


Let's pretend that all residential vehicles are electric. The world is the same, but we all have electric cars. It will never happen of course, but let's pretend. What's the problem? The thousands of large buses in the streets run on diesel. In Toronto, the climate change green phase program has already come and gone.


Municipalities praise their hybrid transit options in the past, only to abandon it in the present. Walk by the engine of a bus and you'll see diesel fumes. There are tens of thousands of buses in Toronto. That's tens of thousands of diesel chimneys running every few minutes, of everyday, all over the city for life. That's not going to change in the near future.


And then we have the airline industry. Planes use a type of diesel fuel that they call jet fuel. In all of the climate change targets and agreements, even the ones in California, the airline industry gets a pass. Why? Because man-made climate change isn’t a real problem. It's just bullsh*t GSIG conditioning.


If man-made climate change were a real problem, the airline industry would have died a long time ago. But the airline industry is thriving. People haven't stopped using planes. Even so-called climate change believers that will shame you for not believing in climate change will use planes on a regular basis. Again, rational thinking for climate change believers tends to go right out the window.


And no, climate change credits by the airline industry won't negate the effects of apocalyptic climate change. It's just the airline industry trying to make you feel good by bullsh*tting you. And most climate change believers are conditioned to go along with it.


Again, most liberals and climate change believers support dogmatic and ideological science. They're not intelligent enough to question their own ideologies. I know it sounds unbelievable, but if you question their ideologies, they'll become as dogmatic as religious believers. It's very sad.


And then we have the construction sector. Take a look at any major city and you'll always see construction going on. New retail buildings, new houses, and new condos. And what's powering all of those massive vehicles? Diesel fuel.


In Toronto, there's never been a year that doesn’t end with massive retail, corporate, or residential construction. Not a single year. Why? Because major cities are only getting bigger. No amount of efficient light bulbs will ever solve anything. Especially when corporate buildings leave them on at night.


And then we have the armored vehicles...the ones that empty out the ATM machines and deposit ridiculous amounts of money into banks. If you think that those armored trucks can run on electric, you’re dreaming. Most of them are running on heavy polluting diesel.


In the past, the climate change movement cheers the advent of diesel because of its low carbon emissions. They actually cheer the advent of poisoning our air in the name of climate change in the past. Are you cracked in the head? It's only in 2016 that they start walking back on those claims due to the Volkswagen emission cheating scandal.


And then we have the delivery sector. Again, in our hypothetical scenario residential cars are all electric. But delivering goods/products to warehouses is an action that only diesel trucks (small and large) can handle.


How do you think Wal-Mart receives their products? How do you think Amazon receives their products? How do you think retail stores all over the world receive their products? With massive diesel trucks, ships, and planes.


There are millions of diesel trucks moving goods back and forth as you read this very sentence. It doesn't matter what time of the day it is, the trucks are always moving. Why? Because North America is run on capitalism. And capitalism is run on goods/services. And goods need to moved from one place to another. And the only way that can be done is via diesel trucks, ships, or planes. And that's not going to change in the near future.


The only solution for this problem and the above one is if a genius inventor creates Star Trek like transporters. Aside from that, the climate change movement has zero chance of success in their larger mission to save the Earth from carbon and methane emissions.


And just in case you're wondering, no, the 20-30 year plans to phase out oil (UK, French, and Chinese governments) are just for the sake of appearances. They have no basis in reality whatsoever. We have to give the people what they want to hear while we continue to profit off of oil for another 100 years.


But that's not all. No, there's one more ongoing chronic activity that requires diesel and consumes a massive amount of energy. And that would be Hollywood. The fact that the climate change movement enlists the help of Hollywood is a complete contradiction (see the Years of Living Dangerously Series Debunked, Season 1 and Season 2).


Hollywood's carbon footprint isn't just large, it's incalculable. Why? Because it's constant. Just like trucks in motion, as you read this sentence another Hollywood TV show/movie is being made. How? With massive amounts of diesel to move all of the equipment (lights, cameras, tents, chairs, tables, food, personal trailers and such). Aside from that, the production always needs a constant supply of energy to film. Not exactly a light carbon footprint.


Hollywood is an industry that specializes in fakeness. Celebrities live artificial lifestyles via drugs, surgeries, and technology. Hollywood doctors will do anything to serve the disturbing needs and desires of their high paying clientele. And even if you aren't on pharmaceutical drugs, the billion dollar Hollywood rehab industry will be there for you.


Rationally speaking, there's no level where Hollywood and climate change go together. One ideology is built on mass excess where all desires are possible. And the other is supposedly built on a minimalist lifestyle. If you think that these two ideologies can work together, you're cracked in the head.


Even if the climate change moment ever succeeds in getting 99% of people to use electric cars, their efforts will be inconsequential. The entire infrastructure of Western-European (WE) society is based on diesel/jet fuel. The vision of electric cars is just a hollow victory of wine and cheese followed by antidepressants to help climate change believers/liberals fall asleep.


And then we have the meat eaters. Contrary to what most climate change believers claim, no, you can't eat meat/chicken/pork and claim that you believe in climate change. Why not? Because the meat industry is directly responsible for climate change emissions.


And no, swapping out meat for chicken won't cut it. Hardcore climate change believers know this, but also know that they'll lose the majority of their supporters if they advocate for the end of meat. If you're eating meat (it doesn't matter how much) on a regular basis, you're not a climate change believer. You may think that you are in your mind, but in reality you're not.


Personally, I prefer a vegetarian lifestyle (with seafood and eggs). That means that I eat vegetarian food as my main food, but if a regular person (who doesn't know that I prefer vegetarian) offers me a meal with meat, I'll eat it. Why?


Because there's no reason you have to be an asshole in terms of diet choices (aside from allergies). When I go to Aboriginal communities, I eat whatever they offer. Why? Because eating meat is a cultural tradition. It's not asking too much to respect their dietary culture.


And just in case you don't know, if you go to an Aboriginal community and tell them that you're vegetarian, most will take offense. Again, imposing your dietary preferences on others (aside from allergies) is a great annoyance. You don't need to do that. You can go home and eat your normal diet.


And one day a month, I eat whatever I want (steak, chicken, bacon). Why? Why not? I don't have a good reason for doing so, but I still do it. Hence, the rational and irrational nature of humans. I consider myself to be a half-assed vegetarian. But my half-assed vegetarian values are closer to climate change than climate change believers who eat meat on a regular basis and still have the audacity to call themselves climate change believers.


Why do such people (who eat meat) call themselves climate change believers? Because it's the dominant ideology. In the past, eugenics is the dominant ideology. All backed by supposed objective science. Most people go along with it because of that dominance. And yet today, you have environmentalists calling for politicians to be jailed for ignoring objective climate science. [1]


In the past, that would be the equivalent of jailing politicians who don't believe that eugenics is the correct course of actions. You gotta love how history repeats and reinvents itself. Different issues, same bullshit conditioning and rhetoric.


You need to remember than even liberal prime ministers and presidents don't give a flying f*ck about climate change. They just have to appear as if they care for the sake of appearances. But they really don't give a shit. Don't believe me? See for yourself:


The government's controversial attempt to establish a shale gas industry in the UK took another step forward on Thursday when it handed out new licences for onshore gas and oil exploration in 159 blocks, in a move campaigners say could open up swaths of the countryside to fracking. [2]


U.S. oil production has surged 82 percent to near-record levels in the past seven years and natural gas is up by nearly one-quarter. Instead of shutting down the hydraulic fracturing process that has unlocked natural gas from dense rock formations, Obama has promoted the fuel as a stepping stone to a greener, renewable future. [3]


Canada's attempt to act on climate change is being undermined by $3.3bn in government subsidies following to oil and gas producers in the country a year... [4]


Through the US Export-Import Bank, Barack Obama's administration has spent nearly $34bn supporting 70 fossil fuel projects around the world... [5]


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet colleagues signed off on two major pipelines today, projects that will pump nearly a million more barrels of oil a day from Alberta's oilsands to global markets, if they are constructed.

Ottawa gave the green light to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge's Line 3, while it rejected Northern Gateway. [6]


Despite vigorous recent attempts to greenwash his legacy, President Obama's climate policy in his first term was largely indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s. Both fought mightily to avoid greenhouse gas regulation — Bush because he didn't care about the issue, Obama because it was a lower priority than health care and, after the Affordable Care Act passed, because of fear of the political consequences. Only after the 2012 election did Obama show any appetite for actual emissions regulation, and by then it was too little — and way too late. [7]


The federal government has conditionally approved the Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas project in British Columbia with 190 legally binding conditions.

...McKenna said the investment was worth $11 billion and would be one of Canada's largest resource development projects. [8]


The Liberal government is proposing to allow oil and gas exploration in a new marine protected area that it plans to establish where the Gulf of St. Lawrence meets the Atlantic Ocean. [9]


And then we have the so called climate change believers who live in large detached houses and/or live a lifestyle of excess. Sorry, but if you live in a large detached house or don't live a minimalist lifestyle, you don't believe in climate change.


All climate change believers have to live in apartments or condos. Why? Because building a house for each family is energy intensive and not as efficient as living in apartments or condos. If you're buying new boats, cars, private jets, multiple houses, and accumulating stuff in general, you don't believe in climate change. Climate change believers have to adhere to a strict minimalist lifestyle. Why? Because excess is the enemy of a low carbon lifestyle.


And then we have the obesity industry. Or more accurately put, we have obese climate change believers. Now that's a definite oxymoron. My apologies to all chubby Pillsbury adults, but you can't claim that you believe in climate change if you're obese. Not rationally speaking of course.


You're excessive dietary lifestyle of meat, bread, and junk food is a complete contradiction to the climate change movement. And no, obesity isn't stamped into your biology as many incompetent liberals believe. That's just ideological junk science (see The Obesity Industry in Philosophy Reborn Part IV: Naturally Unhealthy Big Pharma & Big Media).


The fact that liberal institutions advocate for more plus size models is evidence that the climate change movement have lost their ability to reason. By advocating for plus size models, they're really saying that obesity is okay. And it's not okay. Aside from the numerous negative health conditions (which my tax dollars have to pay for in Canada), it's a complete contradiction to climate change ideologies.


To apply that in real life, Michael Moore isn't a climate change believer. Why not? Because he's obese. His obesity is a complete contradiction to the climate change movement. In addition to that, all of his million dollar detached houses (the ones not taken in the divorce) are a complete contradiction to the minimalist lifestyle.


All of those liberal millionaires and billionaires that live in huge detached properties don't believe in climate change (regardless of what they say). Why not? Because their actions, their carbon intensive lifestyles, are a complete contradiction to climate change ideologies.


The fact is that climate change and capitalism, or even climate change and communism doesn't work well together. Putting the words climate change and china in the same sentence is an oxymoron more so than military intelligence during the illegal US invasion of Iraq.


Climate change is now a multitrillion dollar industry from the peer-reviewed literature, to carbon taxes/cap and trade, to electric vehicles, to green energy programs. Why? Because that's the way that Global Special Interest Groups (GSIGs) want it (see The Deep State). Advocating solutions for problems that don't exist is something that GSIGs specialize in. And generally speaking, liberals are the useful idiots that fall for it every time.


Allow me to be clear. When a particular issue or science is falsifiable, you don't need Al Gore, Leonardo di Caprio, Barak Obama, Hollywood, or liberal media outlets to sell it to you. If climate change was falsifiable objective science, Hollywood wouldn't have to sell it to you via Hollywood disaster movies such as The Day After Tomorrow (2004), 2012 (2009), and Geostorm (2017).


The fact that the liberal trifecta is trying to condition you via these disaster movies should be a red flag to you that climate change is not falsifiable science but ideological junk science, like all the junk sciences prior (eugenics, male superiority, hair analysis, bite-mark analysis, and cholesterol and fat causing heart disease).


And just in case you're wondering, putting a price on carbon has zero basis in objective science. It's just a cash grab for the government and to make climate change believers feel good about themselves.


When something is falsifiable (like chemistry and physics), chemists and physicists don't have to sell it to you. Why not? Because it will affect you just as much whether you believe it or not. Whether you believe or don't believe, the laws of chemistry and physics apply equally to everyone. That's a characteristic of falsifiable science.


The fact that the multitrillion dollar climate change industry has to sell itself in order for you to believe it should be a red flag to you that it’s not based on falsifiable science.


You can even think of this from an ancient perspective. If the Greek Empire were climate change believers in the past, they would claim that temperatures and sea level are rising. They would claim that all sea life would be extinct in the next 100 years. And they would be completely wrong.


While the sea level would rise, that's because of the end of last ice age (about 13,000 years ago), not man-made climate change. But that's what unfalsifiable ideologies tend to do to people. They blindly believe in them and interpret observations to fit their ideologies.


It's a shame that climate change believers and conservatives don't get along well. Both are stubborn in their unfalsifiable ideological claims. Both will go to their graves believing in them. The end times are coming. The carbon apocalypse is coming.


And that common ground isn't accidental. It's an intentional principle by GSIGs. GSIGs play all sides, be it religion, politics, media, TV, film, education, advertising, sports, and the environment (see The Deep State).


Aside from GSIG free trade agreements, the climate change movement itself has practically wiped out the manufacturing sector in Canada and the US. Doing so prevents a nation from being self-sufficient and sustainable. And that's not accidental. That's intentional.


Population Control

Allow me to be blunt. The most hardcore environmentalists/climate change believers are cold blooded atheist eugenicists that can never experience eternal love. Not because it's impossible. It's because their ideologies prevent them from feeling it. Just because we currently don't live in a survival of the fittest society, doesn't mean that atheist environmentalists are against living in such a society.


Hence, the carrying capacity argument by the climate change/environmental movement. There are too many people on the planet. The Earth can't handle it.




Contrary to what you may believe, the Earth doesn't have a carrying capacity. Canada, Russia, and China can each hold five to ten times its current population. How? Energy efficient buildings, below and above ground infrastructure, and good governance.


Sadly, many climate change believers believe that it's their duty to cleanse the world of too many ants...I mean people. While they're against the destruction of the Earth, they secretly support the death of billions of people in order to lighten the Earth's load.


And who will be the ones to go first? Dark skinned visible minorities of course. And that will be followed by brown people and Asians. Privileged white people will be spared because they see themselves as the caretakers of the Earth. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.


Of course, neo-eugenicists and survival of the fittest liberal atheists can't just come out and say such things. They have to first condition people by using different terms and opening the debate/dialogue.


And that's where you get episodes like Bill Nye gently getting onboard the population control bandwagon (see Bill Nye Saves the World Series Debunked - Season 1, Episode 13 - Earth's People Problem).


And where are the talking points coming from? Most likely from the Rockefeller funded Population Council of course:

...share our research widely with policymakers, program managers, the scientific community, industry partners, and the public to ensure that programs and products reach the populations they are intended to serve.

The Population Council's work goes beyond research. We strive to ensure that our evidence is translated into lasting impact through policies and programs. We provide technical assistance to strengthen national programs, and we offer expertise in expanding effective and sustainable interventions, implementing systems to monitor and evaluate projects, and finding innovative ways to pay for health care. [10]


In 2015 the Population Council has total assets of $144.9 million (USD). [11] If you read the annual reports, you'll see that it's privileged white people showing dark skinned visible minorities the errors of their ways.


Remember, almost everything you see is a battle of ideologies. It's not that conservatives hate the environment. They just love people more. Liberal atheists hate having too many people on the planet. And many of them get tired of looking at visible minorities and taking them into account. Hence, visible minorities will be the first to disappear in a liberal environmental utopia.


And then we have the billionaires with their population control plans:


Some of America's leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education.

...Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5.

...but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat. [12]


Framing the population issue as an environmental, social, and industrial threat? That's exactly what the liberal trifecta, environmentalists, and climate change believers are saying today. While it may be hard to accept, most liberals beholden to GSIGs today are blindly following a GSIG script.


And then there are the liberals, environmentalists, and climate change believers that see humanity as a pestilence on the Earth:


The television presenter [David Attenborough] said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources.

He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.

"We are a plague on the Earth. It's coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It's not just climate change; it's sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now," he told the Radio Times. [13]


And then there are the claims by liberals, environmentalists and climate change believers for people in WE countries to start reducing their family size or just have an abortion. We'll start with eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger:


Sanger advocated "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

..."The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children," she wrote.

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it," she continued.

..."If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy," Sanger wrote. [14]


What is the response from liberals, environmentalists, and climate change believers? She's misunderstood. She's a product of her time. She only wanted the best for people. Sorry, but a eugenicist is a eugenicist. And Sanger definitely wanted to prevent the black population in the US from spreading.


Why do liberals still defend her? They have no choice. Defending abortion is the same as defending its eugenicist founder. Liberals, environmentalists, and climate change believers merely rationalize and compartmentalize what they don't like about Sanger and advocate what they do.


These types of actions lead liberals, environmentalists, and climate change believers to live disingenuous lives. And as you should know by now, the disingenuous life is not worth living.

And then there's David Attenborough and his family planning:


Sir David Attenborough has said that he is not optimistic about the future and that people should be persuaded against having large families.

...He added: "If you were able to persuade people that it is irresponsible to have large families in this day and age, and if material wealth and material conditions are such that people value their materialistic life and don't suffer as a consequence, then that's all to the good. But I'm not particularly optimistic about the future. I think we're lucky to be living when we are, because things are going to get worse." [15]


And then we have modern liberals and the peer-reviewed literature:


What's the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

That's the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

Their answer? Have fewer children. [16]


We have identified four recommended actions which we believe to be especially effective in reducing an individual’s greenhouse gas emissions: having one fewer child, living car-free, avoiding airplane travel, and eating a plant-based diet. [17]


Despite the bullshit population scares in the 1960s and '70s, liberals, environmentalists, and climate change believers are not only clinging to such ideologies, but rewarding them:


And it's not just economists, feminists, and conservative hangers-on who knew [Paul] Ehrlich was wrong. Just about every serious demographer on the planet has spent the last 30 years examining the phenomenon of declining fertility rates, which may lead to population contraction.

...Even in the face of all of this, the elite caste has showered Ehrlich with awards and honors.

...Ehrlich was awarded a million dollar MacArthur "genius" grant and was simultaneously feted across the Atlantic with Sweden's Crafoord Prize, which was worth just about half a million. In 1993 the Heinz Family Foundation bestowed on him its first Heinz Award. This little trinket came with $100,000 in cash 1998, he was awarded the Tyler Prize, which comes with $200,000.

...In 2001, the American Institute of Biological Sciences gave Ehrlich its "Distinguished Scientist" award. In 2009, the World Wildlife Fund featured him as a guest lecturer in their flagship speaker series. In 2012, he was inducted into London's Royal Society... [18]

Why all the praise when Ehrlich is clearly wrong? Because liberals are beholden to GISGs. They can't deviate from the script. They're just pawns to be moved to different areas. It's up to you if you want to be a pawn of GSIGs or think for yourself and carve your own destiny.




[1] Offman, Craig. Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki. National Post. February 7, 2008.

[2] Hellier, David. UK government hands out new fracking licences. Guardian. December 15, 2015.

[3] Dlouhy, Jennifer A. Despite Protests, Oil Industry Thrives Under Obama Agenda. Bloomberg News. January 5, 2016.

[4] Milman, Oliver. Canada gives $3.3bn subsidies to fossil fuel producers despite climate pledge. Guardian. November 15, 2016.

[5] Prasad, Sonali, et al. Obama's dirty secret: the fossil fuel projects the US littered around the world. Guardian. December 1, 2016.

[6] Tasker, John Paul. Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway. CBC News. November 29, 2016.

[7] Bookbinder, David. Obama really had a chance to fight climate change. He blew it. Vox. April 29, 2017.

[8] Federal government approves liquefied natural gas project on B.C. coast with 190 conditions. CBC News. September 27, 2016.

[9] McCarthy, Shawn. Trudeau government proposes opening St. Lawrence marine protected area to oil exploration. Globe and Mail. June 23, 2017.

[10] Annual Report 2015. Sustainable Development For the Next Generation. Population Council. 2016. p. 10-11.

[11] Ibid. p. 14.

[12] Harlow, John. Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation. Sunday Times. May 24, 2009.

[13] Gray, Louise. David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth. Telegraph. January 22, 2013.

[14] Scanlon, Kate. 13 Things You Probably Don't Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Daily Signal. July 22, 2015.

[15] Meikle, James. Sir David Attenborough warns against large families and predicts things will only get worse. Guardian. September 10, 2013.

[16] Meuse, Matt. The best way to reduce emissions? Have fewer kids, researchers say. CBC News. July 13, 2017.

[17] Wynes, Seth and Nicholas, Kimberly A. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters. July 12, 2017. p. 7.

[18] Last, Jonathan V. Paul Ehrlich: Even Worse than the New York Times Says He Is. Weekly Standard. June 2, 2015.