11/7/19: NO COUNTRY FOR CHILDREN OF OLD MEN
NO COUNTRY FOR CHILDREN OF OLD MEN
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
I have a routine in the morning. I have talked about it before – I wake up look at my phone read the news online, take a shower, get dressed and then I go downstairs to actually peruse the TV channels for any news bits I may have missed. It is like a mainstream news crash course.
I play TV news roulette – CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg, MSNBC and by then, I am usually disgusted which motivates me to try and find something different or unique to bring up for the show.
Lately though I have actually ventured into watching local channels and what I get is comic relief, especially when TV roulette lands on the tabloid shows and regrettably, I have been subjected to the mind-numbing cackle that I get from The View.
I have not watched The View since I was sick and bedridden and even then it was torture.
I just happened to catch a recent episode where apparently Jane Fonda has been arrested over and over for getting in people’s faces over Climate Change.
First of all her plastic surgeon needs and award as I realized she is 81 and is still easy on the eyes. Jane apparently has moved to Washington DC and has been leading weekly Climate Change protests in Washington, D.C., she calls “Fire Drill Friday.” She has been arrested many times in the process.
She told co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Abby Huntsman, and Joy Behar that her holding cell’s conditions “weren’t great for old bones like mine” but that she felt worse for people the government doesn’t take care of with “social safety nets” and who often end up in jail.
Fonda added that “it’s only going to get worse as the climate gets worse and more and more people are harmed.”
She again parroted the apocalyptic charge that was first delivered by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez that we only have 11 years before we all die from the effects of Climate Change.
Granted, AOC said 12 years but plastic surgery does not help brain power and recall.
She also told the audience that there’s not enough time left to vote for politicians who don’t make climate change a top priority. Her plan is simple – she encouraged people to risk arrest and go into the streets and put their bodies on the line.
I thought her statement sounded a bit loaded because when she says to put bodies on the line was she actually inferring that perhaps fighting against Climate Change is worth dying for?
Maybe I am overthinking it but we need to consider a few things here.
On November 5th, President Trump officially put a stop to our affiliation with the Paris Agreement. No, you may be saying to yourself – didn’t we already do this?
Well, not quite.
The Trump administration announced that it planned to withdraw in its first year in office, but a country can’t formally even begin to withdraw until three years after the agreement went into force.
For the United States, that was November 4th, 2019. Even so, the United States isn’t quite out yet. It takes exactly one more year for the withdrawal notice to become official, meaning that the United States will formally pull out of the Paris agreement one day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
So, with this in mind, you can expect things to get a bit heated with regard to global warming theories. It will also get a little absurd as well.
Proposals have already been made to create food restrictions on meat, air, and environmental taxes in progressive cities and the banning of plastic straws in restaurants, plastic utensils and small plastic packaging for things like cream for your coffee, crackers for your soups, and jams and jellies for toast.
Where I live, food service workers can face a 500 dollar fine if they offer these items to a customer if they are not asked to do so. There are actually green police that are going to go to various restaurants in order to enforce the new law.
To quote to our state’s plastic policy “Food and drink purveyors could face up to a $500 fine for automatically providing customers with plastic straws, stirrers, utensils, or plastic-packaged condiments like soy sauce or coffee creamer.”
This policy is, in fact, creating a problem with customers who are unaware of the policy and assume that the server in the restaurant is not providing good customer service.
This is how bad it is getting – Climate Change fanaticism is limiting the freedom to have the simplest of things in a restaurant.
I mean we all know you don’t have right to straws, or spoons forks and knives, but these laws are quite simply peasant laws.
These are laws that fall under the category of the wisdom of repugnance.
The term originated in discussions of bioethics. It is often used by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. It is thus often viewed as loaded language and is primarily used by certain bioconservatives to justify their position.
In other words, you must give up some luxuries for sustainable living – you must adapt or perish.
The wisdom of repugnance has been criticized, both as an example of a fallacious appeal to emotion and for an underlying premise which seems to reject rationalism. For example is it right for the elites to tell you that you must drink cockroach milk, eat crickets, and mealworms in order to curb Climate Change?
Of course, rational people will say, of course not.
But after an emotional appeal, namely saying that it needs to be done or you will die in eleven years – people answer to authority.
If authority tells you to eat with your hands because plastic utensils destroy the environment there are people who will do it for fear they will surely die.
Eat like a peasant and you also run the risk of dying but that is beside the point.
In the book, Animal Farm, by George Orwell, Napoleon the Pig was a character that represented an oppressive dictator began the process of controlling the sheep.
His first act of control was to control the alimentary needs of the farm. He developed a plan to convince the other animals that the apples and the milk were not good for the health of the animals and that the pigs should have them instead. The sheep of course abided by the plan until eventually, Napoleon used fear to get the sheep to give up more than food.
The pigs were given the best beds, the best foods, the best drugs, and alcohol. They were able to live their lives with an equal amount of power. The remaining animals were led to remain equal in their slavery. They were given confusing laws by the pigs. The controls of fear and pain kept the other animals from rebelling against Napoleon.
This is what is being proposed now – the elite expect you to give up things. You are to eat your bugs and grool and eat with your hands.
That is the life of a peasant.
Sometimes the master wants you to give up more than just your food and your tools to eat with which brings me back to Jane Fonda’s comment of putting bodies on the line for Climate Change.
When I hear this I always wonder who will be the stupid one to volunteer first, and while I am sure many people believe it will not go that far – using authority to tell people that they will die in 12 years us just the tip of the so-called melting iceberg.
According to a new study published by the Alliance of World Scientists 11,000 scientists have signed onto an article declaring that “the world population must be stabilized and, ideally, gradually reduced,” because a “climate emergency” threatens “the fate of humanity.”
Simply put, these scientists have signed a death warrant, for humanity and the gradual culling of those who do not wish to live like a peasant.
To say that the new paper is full of alarmist, apocalyptic language is an understatement.
The paper was published in Bioscience and it reads:
“Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year or more than 200,000 per day…the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
The paper goes on to say:
“There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women,” they continued, citing a study from John Bongaarts, a population control activist who spoke at the Vatican in 2017.
Tesla CEO and billionaire Elon Musk, however, has gone on record stating that the “biggest problem” facing the world is not a population explosion, but “population collapse” because of plummeting birth rates.
“Most people think we have too many people on the planet, but actually this is an outdated view,” said Musk in an August 19 live-streamed debate with Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. Chairman Jack Ma at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai.
Demographers have for years already been warning Western countries with below replacement-level birth rates about what some call the “demographic winter” as a result of the decline. In such a collapse, the old outnumber the young, creating severe imbalances. Economies suffer. Some could even crash. The result could negatively impact and could prove detrimental, to some of the main infrastructures such as financial systems and healthcare that contribute to living in a western democracy.
The Alliance of World Scientists also called for a “carbon-free economy” and less meat-eating.
Again, the pigs can eat the apples and milk, but the sheep will eat grubs and alfalfa.
If this doesn’t prove to you that Climate Change is an emotional appeal for tyranny, then I don’t know what else will convince you.
The Alliance of World Scientists states:
“The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle,” they wrote, not mentioning the private jets and sizable carbon footprints of many of the most elite, outspoken climate alarmists.
The pigs, of course, can use all of the creature comforts but the sheep have to suffer.
Again these are 11,000 scientists that endorse these measures.
Furthermore, we read:
“The most affluent countries are mainly responsible for the historical GHG emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions… In the present article, we show general patterns, mostly at the global scale, because there are many climate efforts that involve individual regions and countries. Our vital signs are designed to be useful to the public, policymakers, the business community, and those working to implement the Paris climate agreement, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.”
Pro-life activists have long criticized the UN Sustainable Development Goals for being pro-abortion and pro-contraception and warned that population control efforts undermine human rights and the family. Some population control advocates, such as Jeffrey Sachs (who was also invited to speak at the Vatican during the Francis pontificate), have openly called for forced abortion and sterilization.
All of this alarmist yarn needs to be exposed and someone needs to go back into history and show that this type of political mingling in science was responsible for the eugenics programs that were devised by the elite and the eventual holocaust of an estimated 6 million Jews, homosexuals, and immigrants.
These ideas are age-old fear-mongering tactics to create emotional upheaval over scarcity and population growth.
Think about it – it has been 200 years since Thomas Malthus wrote his famous First Essay on Population, and over 50 years since Dr. Paul Ehrlich wrote his alarmist book, The Population Bomb. Both Malthus’ pamphlet and Ehrlich’s book were bestsellers after their publication and both of them revered as prophets in their day are now seen as false prophets and charlatans now.
Ehrlich’s book, despite being spectacularly wrong, influenced millions. Ehrlich is unrepentant and still claims the collapse of civilization is a “near certainty” in the not too distant future.
Ehrlich is not the only voice proclaiming the end is near. The UK’s “Optimum Population Trust (OPT) believes Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of the century.
Bernie Sanders recently vowed to support “empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth” as a response to Climate Change.
Moreover, James Lovelock advanced the Gaia Hypothesis that Earth is one “self-regulating organism.” Lovelock forecasts the population of the Earth will fall to one billion from its current total of over seven billion people. Lovelock’s is so cheerful and Zen about such carnage.
Alan Hall, a senior analyst at The Socionomist, wonders whether “today’s drives to limit consumption and population” are ideologically related to the eugenics movement from the past century. In his essay “A Socionomic Study of Eugenics,” Hall writes in the Socionomist:
Circa 1900, influential intellectuals in Europe and the U.S. voiced concerns about uncontrolled procreation causing a supposed decline in the quality of human beings. Today, similar groups voice concerns about uncontrolled population growth and resource consumption causing a decline in the quality of the environment…Today’s green advocates brandish images of an overrun, dying planet.
These were the same ideas that not only flourished in an America with the likes of Margaret Sanger pushing eugenics but also Adolph Hitler proposing the sifting of human material.
The proposals provided by the 11,000 scientists to curb population and to restrict diets are somewhat vague – but of course all you need to hear is that the United States is one of the last countries on the planet that doesn’t utilize the eating of insects in their diets. Well, that is because here in the United States we have worked hard to have a healthy and sound way of life.
Today, people live like animals in North Korea. They, too, eat grass and bark off trees.
Geographically, North Korea is almost 25 percent larger than South Korea. The population of modern South Korea is about double the population of starving North Korea.
However, South Korea has a better way of life – does this mean anything to those proposing the culling of people and the peasant eating restrictions they are proposing?
South Korea has a bigger population – North Korea has less.
Overpopulation is relative to the ability of an economy to provide a decent standard of living, adequate nutrition, and minimize the impact on the environment. Using that measure, North Korea, with more land and fewer people, is overpopulated compared to South Korea.
If you think South Korea, with its more modern economy, inflicts more harm on the environment than the poor economy of North Korea, you would be wrong.
In North Korea, some rivers run black from uranium mining.
The poor people of North Korea “harvest forests for fuel and to make fields during a succession of famines… Some people resorted to eating bark,” according to a report from Scientific American.
The result has been widespread deforestation and a denuding of the landscape.
When you are forced to eat like a peasant – you get this.
The truth is, if you decide to accept it, in the past 20 years, “the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty” has fallen by half.
In fact, the optimists are saying that wealth should increase as new ideas and innovations will improve our way of life—it will benefit a population that grows, however, we all need to get over the hurdle of fear and dismiss climate alarmists as cranks.
But this will be a harder sell than you think.
The U.S. birthrate is currently at its lowest in 32 years, with 2018 being the fourth consecutive year of decline. Usually, births increase at times of economic stability, so these latest numbers have led demographers to wonder what else is on prospective parents’ minds.
Well, a poll by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation in September found that 68 percent of respondents ages 18-29 say they are “afraid” of the effects of climate change, and 63 percent of teen respondents believe future generations will be harmed a great deal.
Many of them have decided that they should not bring children into the world because they see them as a burden on the climate and the planet. For others, the concern is less about what a child might do to the world than about what the world might do to that child.
In more than a dozen interviews with young adults who are wrestling with whether or not to become parents, they all said the question weighed on the minds of their peers. There are Facebook groups dedicated to the subject, online pledges to remain childless until governments take concrete steps to protect the planet, and house parties bringing millennials together to discuss their complicated feelings.
It is obvious that the fear-mongering is working.
To think that all it took was people prattling on about carbon parts per million and animations of polar bears drowning to motivate people to give up their futures.
The propagandists are really good. Now those with common sense need to be motivated but I am afraid that no one wants to hear fact when they are standing in a country of old men that they see as climate deniers and thinking that they are doing something for posterity when there will be no children to have that posterity.
We are doomed.