So you call yourself a feminist? An environmentalist? Are you sure you want to say that about yourself? The average feminist says he or she (I’ve always found it weird that some men call themselves ‘feminists’ but OK) believes in equality. Sounds great. But when you support a movement, shouldn’t you know what the movement is actually doing?
Same with environmentalism. Who doesn’t want clean oceans, streams, rivers and lakes? Who doesn’t want to be able to visit a nice forest or national park. Yet again, most environmentalism as a movement has nothing at all to do with saving the environment.
Each of these two modern philosophies are based in Marxism and murder. Don’t take my word for it. Instead, let’s look and see what ‘Feminist leaders’ and ‘Environmentalists’ are saying about it: (From TruthandAction.org)
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth.
Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”
Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.
Paul Ehrlich: “Basically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birth rate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate — war, famine, pestilence — find us.”
Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbournein a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
So there it is. Do these views represent you? Is this what you stand for as a Feminist or Environmentalist? If not, maybe you should rethink how you identify yourself.
It is always important to think of what the endgame of a given ideology is in order to fully understand it. Marxism is about total control and murder. Feminism and Environmentalism are just the legs upon which Marxism stands.
***NOTE: Please, consider buying one of my books which will help this blog reach more people. Toy Farm Lemonade, The Beagle and the Dolphin and A Puerto Rican Manifesto and my latest piece ‘Life lessons from driving lessons‘ are all available today at Amazon Kindle.
Also please, consider a donation to Puerto Rican Conservative News and Franktopia to take these blogs global Visit the PR conservative Pay Pal page to donate. Thanks to those who have already donated.