Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
Environmentalists Openly Blaming People with 'Too Many Children' for Climate Change...
Studies suggest you should dig a hole, lay in it, put a steel barrel in your mouth, and kiss the world goodbye. For the planet (related ‘Climate Change’ Changes Again: From Global Warming to… Global Cooling?! and Quartz Blames Increase of Philippine Sex Trafficking on Climate Change). If that doesn't work, there's another option: don't procreate. Instead, eat a vegan diet. Spare the planet of your sexually reproductive ways and sterilize yourself. But remember, it's "your body, your choice." But only if you kill your baby.
Look, a tweet:
These are the suggestions of "scientists" in our modern world. Not to be confused with Orwellian antagonists:
The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions.
Pause. So following that logic, if someone has no children, they're saving the planet even more! Let's take a few more steps down the white rabbit hole: killing your unborn children is saintly for Mother Earth.
The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.
But remember, it's "your body, your choice." So long as you're choosing to kill that tiny, carbon emitting human residing in your womb. Tell me again about how leftist environmentalists don't hate children.
“Population reduction would probably reduce carbon emissions but we have many other tools for getting global warming under control,” he said. “Perhaps more importantly, cutting the number of people on the planet will take hundreds of years. Emissions reduction needs to start now.”
A little historical context: the pushers of genocide always cite a reason for their purge. Hitler blamed cultural rot and a poor economy on the Jews. Solution? Kill the jews. Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame, hated inferior races and how they impacted the superior races (she was a real peach). Her solution? Kill them through abortion via "family planning."
But wait, you say. This article isn't talking about "killing" children, just having fewer of them. It's a slippery slope argument to be sure. Allow me to explain.
The "we have to get the population under control or we're all going to die!" crowd has been crowing about "overpopulation" for at least a hundred years. Their solution? Fewer children. Of course they'll push "contraception" and "family planning." But you know how these types operate. Contraception is a gateway to abortion. I hear it from the left all the time: "my contraception failed. I didn't want to have this baby, ergo I'm killing it." Bonus points for saving the planet. Not only will the left claim abortion is necessary for a woman's "mental" health, she'll be sparing the planet even more carbon emissions. Abortion will be seen as a heroic act for Mother Earth. This article is laying the foundational ground work. It's littered with the soft, crushed bones of human children.
Remember China's one child policy? How do you think such policies take root in a country? The government, pushed by lobbying activists, implement policies "for the greater good." In this case "we need to save the planet from humanity. Solution: limit children." If you think I'm being paranoid, no. Talk to a family with more than three children. Ask them about how their treated by liberals. Hint: not well. Larger families are routinely shamed for having more than two children. And now we have active campaigns to push for fewer children. Some liberals will happily admit government limiting how many children people can have is totes awesome. Like Ted Turner.
Incidentally, having fewer children is a problem for society. See: To Fix Broken Welfare, Denmark Ad Asks Citizens to Have More Sex?! Fewer children means an aging population, translating into an imploding workforce. If a society falls below replacement levels, it becomes top heavy: with more old folks than young whipper snappers who can work, pay taxes, contribute to society, and therefore take care of the aging population. Don't believe me? Look into social security's financial problems.
The left is constantly engaged in a culture of death. Which is why they push abortion, euthanasia, national healthcare (so government can decide who lives and who dies) and complete control over your life. The war on your fertility has long been waged. Now the left is more open about it.
Speaking of the devaluation of human life and the waste of life potential: