When it comes to evil totalitarian ideologies, moonbattery is not the first — but it is potentially the worst. In the context of what other ideology would people openly call for the eradication of the human race?
Tuesday’s Dr. Phil episode focused on the ethics of procreation and the debate over overpopulation where Voluntary Human Extinction Movement founder Les Knight delivered a variety of shocking statements.
Shocking — yet consistent with the climate ideology of the Democratic Party and the globalist ruling class.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Like many leftists, Knight combines hatred of the human race with sanctimonious socialism. “Feed ‘em don’t breed ‘em” is his motto.
Knight … laid out his ideology’s optimal conclusion, “And if we all stopped procreating we’ll go extinct, slowly, we’ll clean up our messes as we go, and the biosphere – what’s left of it, will have a chance to recover.”
Grotesquely, moonbats manage to shoehorn even the eradication of the human race into the context of fabricated “rights”:
He later suggested that “reproductive freedom” is “the most important thing we need today,” claiming that “hundreds of millions of couples are denied their right to not procreate.”
Knight drew attention to the vicious cycle of life, whereby people cannot afford rubbers because they have spent all their money feeding their children:
Knight elaborated that many do not have the “contraceptive services – reproductive health services that they need. Those are not provided, and maybe people should supply their own, but they can’t afford it because they’re having more offspring that they can’t feed.”
Fortunately for the biosphere, this cycle can be broken with taxpayer-financed contraception.
Knight, despite advocating the extinction of the human race, last week received an adoring profile in The New York Times, even being compared to the late “Mr. Rogers” of television fame.
What do they mean, “despite”? As flagship publication of the liberal ruling class, the NY Times is on board with the antihuman agenda:
A New York Times newsletter published an article by staff editor Spencer Bokat-Lindell arguing that declining fertility rates and a shrinking population could be a good thing to help the world combat climate change.
Evidently, the climate never fluctuated until humans came along.
[Bokat-Lindell argues that] the economic hardship caused by a declining population will make people less inclined to consume energy, which he says is good for the planet.
Bokat-Lindell’s piece is quoted:
“As Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post has explained, fossil fuel consumption is driven primarily by increases in affluence, not the number of people on the planet per se.”
We must restrict affluence, while working to reduce the human population, because fossil fuels theoretically offend the weather.
The population of his own country is most in need of reduction:
He went on to argue that population growth in rich countries like the U.S. would “almost certainly” lead to “large increases in planet-warming emissions,” which he says is bad for the planet.
Was Marxism, Nazism, or Islam ever as nakedly malevolent as the ideology promulgated by the establishment media and imposed by the Democratic Party?