We’ve descended into discourse that calls for birth strikes, international abortions, and on the farthest end of the spectrum, the consumption of human flesh, all to save the environment
Archeologists were recently reminded of a particularly gruesome part of ancient Peruvian culture, as they discovered a massive graveyard made up of the skeletal remains.
Experts believe that they’ve unearthed the bodies of 227 children, all between the ages of four and 14, sacrificed to placate the gods of rain and floods sometime between 1200 and 1400.
Other nearby sites found during the excavations prior found other shocking yet similar discovery; the corpses of over 100 children and 200 llamas, only miles away from the Huanchaco scene, believed to be similar in nature.
The thought that a civilization would justify the murder of their own children in an attempt to change the weather is stomach-churning. The violent nature of the event makes it even worse to think about. Sacrificing your future to the gods in exchange for good weather, though, is not something we’ve grown out of.
To “properly” sacrifice the future generation in hopes of changing the weather, one only needs to look at the climate cult that has arisen and intensified in the last few years.
“Birth strikers,” for example, are climate activists who have made the choice to no longer bear children out of fear the future generations will experience famine, flooding, extreme droughts, or severe natural disasters, leaving the planet unfit for humans.
The movement also looks to curb on “overpopulation,” helping to preserve the planet by not having any more children who would take up the planet’s natural finite resources.
The climate cultists have stepped into the limelight in recent years in response to the observable changing weather patterns. While we should all be concerned about our environment, the inhumane behaviour that is being “justified” by climate change is what’s most alarming.
This was put on to full display last night during CNN’s climate town hall event, in which several US presidential candidates took the stage to discuss our future and the relationship between civilization and Earth.
Let there be no confusion, either: This is a doomsday cult. When presidential candidate and US Senator Elizabeth Warren discussed the future of humanity, she stated that “we’ve got, what? Eleven years, maybe…”
This eleven to twelve-year figure comes from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report,
The problem with reports like these is that “doomsday” reports of similar nature have popped up numerous times over the last few decades. A senior U.N. environmental official said “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels” if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. That prediction, again made by the U.N., was clearly off the mark.
Perhaps most famously, former US Presidential candidate Al Gore and his climate-cult classic, An Inconvenient Truth, missed the mark on plenty of grandiose predictions, like that Mount Kilimanjaro would no longer have snow on it.
Candidates gave what can be described as “Green-Authoritarianism,” vastly expanding government’s control and influence over people’s day to day lives. It’s not just one candidate espousing these ideas, either. It’s the mainstream.
Take Kamala Harris’ stance on educating the public on “the effect of our eating habits on the environment,” even going os far as to say that she would change the dietary guidelines to reduce the amount of red meat you can eat.
Another key point mentioned by the climate doomsayers was abortion. The hot-button issue was mentioned side-by-side with overpopulation, notably in a question to candidate Bernie Sanders.
The question, which talked about unsustainable human population growth, was thrown at Sanders, to which he gave an answer that outlined the idea of funding birth control, as well as abortions to third world countries around the world.
The DNC’s acceptance of radical climate alarmism legitimizes doomsday ideologues who are in full propaganda mode, pulling every trick in the book.
Take, for example, climate figurehead Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish climate alarmist who has Asperger’s syndrome, along with selective mutism and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
The reason Thunberg’s role as a figurehead is seen as so cynical to some is due to how incredibly difficult it is to attack her ideology without directly attacking a 16-year-old girl. We’ve already seen one Canadian federal party leader try—and completely blunder—an attempt to call out her ideas and motives.
There are valid criticisms of Thunberg. The language she uses, particularly the call for people to “panic,” is alarmist at worst. But she is not to blame for her behaviour—she’s very young and impressionable. It’s unfair to attack her.
'I want you to panic': 16-year-old issues climate warning at Davos
What is to blame, though, is the irresponsible “end-is-nigh” preachiness that has completely taken over discourse.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
How far will this go? The ideas being espoused by the climate cult have lost much of their civility, and it’s beginning to become evident that it could even turn macabre.
Take for example the Swedish researcher who promoted cannibalism as a solution to climate change in a talk titled “Can You Imagine Eating Human Flesh?”
The behavioural scientist and marketing strategist Magnus Soderlund actually attempted to break down the “ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh,” referring to those taboos as “conservative,” and states that people’s resistance to it as a “problem that could be overcome.”
We’ve descended into discourse that calls for birth strikes, abortion to curb population, and on the farthest end of the spectrum, the consumption of human flesh, all to save the environment. If the “human flesh” speaker seems unfairly lumped in with the DNC, then at least acknowledge that outlets like The Guardian are promoting the idea of eating mealworm-based substitutions.
There’s a way to have productive conversations about the environment. The way that this conversation has been hijacked is dangerous, and we must collectively find a better way to do so.
With that said, perhaps we should all be paying more attention to Universal Basic Income advocate Andrew Yang who focused the conversation on actual answers, regarding the economy and the politics of climate change.
In his responses, Yang highlighted all of the problems with our system, and offered realistic solutions to them. He did not demonize, he did not hyperbolize, but he instead gave a cool-headed, rational outlook on the issue that provided relief, knowing that these issues are not the unconquerable bogeyman that the rest made it out to be.
Because at this rate, it’s only a matter of time that some nutjob suggests suicide as a measure to reduce carbon emissions.
