Environmentalists Want to Save the Planet by Killing Asthma Patients

By Daniel Greenfield, @ Sultan Knish Blog

After blaming the imminent destruction of the planet on cows, babies and supermarket shoppers, environmentalists have found a new villain to scapegoat and persecute.

Asthma patients.

Remember the ‘ozone hole’ crisis that was supposed to wipe out the planet when the atmosphere would disappear any day now and flood us with deadly radiation? That particular fake environmental crisis in a series of them (overpopulation, global food shortages, ice ages, global warming) led to a crackdown on hairsprays, fridges and air conditioners.

Asthma inhalers were exempted because environmentalists didn’t believe that even liberals were quite ready to kill a quarter of a billion people in the name of ‘saving the planet’.

Maybe that has changed.

Most people have forgotten about the ‘ozone layer’, but the war on asthma inhalers has been heating up. The latest shot was fired in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is supposed to advocate for patients, rather than against them, claiming that asthma inhalers release as much carbon dioxide as 530,000 cars or an entire conference of the American Medical Association.

Emissions from asthma patients trying to breathe “drive global warming”, a JAMA editor’s note falsely claimed. A ‘researcher’ at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine huffed and puffed that “inhalers add to the growing carbon footprint of the US healthcare system.”

The “carbon footprint” being the health and lives of hundreds of millions of human beings.

The researcher neglected to apply the same number crunching being used to condemn the asthma inhalers that millions of patients depend on to the private jet of David Geffen, a Hollywood billionaire, which has been listed as emitting 158.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or as much as 28 asthma patients with inhalers could emit over a lifetime of trying to survive.

UCLA shamefully admitted to emitting 279,834 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s the equivalent of 12 million asthma inhalers. If we had to choose between the existence of UCLA and millions of asthma patients, it’s no choice at all. But obviously David Geffen is not about to stop flying his private jet, most recently to the Super Bowl in New Orleans, and UCLA is not about to stop handing out degrees in transgender poetry that could just as easily be dispensed via Zoom to AI-driven bots programmed to be woke, but asthma patients have to sacrifice.

At a campaign rally in Virginia, President Trump had complained that post-Ozone hysteria hairsprays were less effective. That’s obviously true. But less effective hairspray doesn’t kill people. Less effective asthma inhalers do. The push to get asthma patients to switch to ‘dry powder’ inhalers and other ‘environmentally friendly’ inhalers has severe consequences.

Another study published in JAMA earlier this year found that veterans in the VA system who were switched from metered-dose inhalers to ‘dry powder’ inhalers suffered increases in hospitalizations and ER visits.

“We had hoped that the inhaler formulary change would have had a neutral effect on clinical outcomes because the dry-powder inhaler was both less expensive and better for the environment, but the analyses showed that patients taking fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler experienced more adverse health outcomes — likely offsetting some of the health system’s cost and carbon savings,” one of the researchers said. Though if the veterans had died, some environmentalists would have viewed that as a net ‘carbon savings’.

Those concerned more about a fictional environmental crisis that was made up yesterday and will be forgotten tomorrow than about the suffering of asthma patients keep claiming that ‘patient education’ is the way to go. Except that some asthma patients are using their medication during moments of stress and breathing difficulties, others are elderly, and metered dose inhalers are simple and simply work, which can make all the difference between home and a hospital trip.

Asthma patients already struggling to breathe are trying to suck in powder because environmentalists would rather ration the precious ‘carbon’ so that it can instead be used to offset the next trip by environmentalists to a global conference on how the world will end unless we outlaw asthma inhalers, supermarket shopping bags and human reproduction.

The level of environmentalist cruelty knows no decency, no boundaries and no limits.

The war on asthma inhalers has had numerous side effects on patients, with some newer medications only being made available in the more challenging ‘environmentally friendly’ and patient unfriendly inhalers, and the rush to patent new ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘patient friendly’ propellants is further raising the price of already expensive medications. And giving insurance companies another reason to reject them from their narrowing formularies.

Asthma patients are having their lives and health threatened by environmentalists over a claim that their inhalers emitted less than 25 million tons of carbon dioxide over ten years.

The current estimate of 2 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from asthma inhalers also happens to be roughly the annual carbon emissions from the United Nations. Which one should we save and which one should we sacrifice: asthma patients or the United Nations.

Environmentalists of course aren’t advocating a shutdown of the UN while its various delegates, terrorists and appeasers hold their sessions via Zoom. Instead they want to grow the UN and destroy the lives of asthma patients over nearly the same number of carbon emissions.

It was never about the fictional problem of carbon emissions, but about inflicting misery.

Environmentalists don’t really want to save the planet, they want to kill us. The various fake crises are a pretext for wrecking lives, causing pain, and taking away even basic necessities while they jet off to their various conferences that ‘emit’ ten times as much of whatever.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

 

Fraud is Still a Crime, Including Green Fraud!

By Rich Kozlovich 

Daniel Greenfield published this piece entitled,  Environmentalists Killed Logging to Protect Owls. Now They Want to Kill the Owls, saying:

Thirty-five years after “save a logger, eat an owl” could be seen across the Pacific Northwest, the government environmentalists at US Fish and Wildlife want to kill half a million owls….......the Owl Wars that entered the 1990 presidential election seem implausible. But they cost tens of thousands of jobs, wiped out sizable amounts of the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest........listing the spotted owls as an endangered species. The northern spotted owls (which to non-owl fanciers look like most other owls except smaller) were listed as endangered by that noted scientist, Judge William L. Dwyer, who apart from destroying logging also helped create the Seattle Mariners which placed two crimes against humanity on his checkered soul.

Okay, "noted scientist" was for those who didn't get it, was a bit of snarc, and rightly so.  But being wrong is legendary for the environmental movement, right along with lying, and corruptly using the Endangered Species Act as a bludgeon for their fallacious claims.  

This insanity didn't only kill jobs, it killed forests, and people.  In October of 2022 Kevin Nelson, posted this article, Two Words Explain California’s Wildfire Woes: Spotted Owl, saying:

Some things in life are hard to understand and explain. The theory of relativity, for example, or the origins of black holes. Other things are easy to grasp, however,  Such as: California’s wildfire woes. In the past five years summer and fall firestorms have killed dozens of people, wiped out homes, businesses and entire communities, torched millions of acres of forestlands, caused billions in property losses, and swept away untold numbers of animals and wildlife.

The cause of all this wreckage is easy to pinpoint. It’s simple as two words: spotted owl.........The fight was over protecting the owl’s habitat. After lawsuits, protests and even violence, the environmentalists won............. delivered a death blow to an entire way of life. Sawmills shut down, loggers lost their jobs, and those little backwoods lumber towns went from boom to 1930s Depression-era bust.............

At the risk of over-simplification, the prevailing forest management wisdom in the post-spotted owl era has been: Don’t touch those trees. Leave ‘em where they be, for people coming up from the city to enjoy on the weekends. And sue and regulate the hell out of anyone who dares try to make a profit by harvesting them

It wasn't logging that decimated the spotted owl population, it was the barred owl.  Repeal the Endangered Species Act and remove enforcement authority from the Fish and Wildlife Service, or even better, eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Their claims about owls, frogs, polar bears, honey bees, and more, were outright lies, misrepresentation of the facts, or speculation without foundation.  A common thread in all environmentalist writings.  But who really got that ball rolling was  Rachel Carson's and her "science fiction" book Silent Spring ultimately causing the unscientific ban on DDT.

As an  exterminator for 40 years who wrote extensively defending my industry I had to do a great deal of reading delving into the twisted reasonings of the green movement and it wasn't long before I began to realize everything they say is a lie, speculation, logical fallacies, and projection, with just enough truth to give the impression what they're promoting is right and true, mostly based on emotion. 

From that point on no matter what they promoted I started out with the valid premise it was a lie, and then did the research to find what was a valid and what was not, then develop the intellectual response to show why it's a lie.  

I posted this article in March of this year, Junk Science Thirteen Years Ago, saying:  I have to point out this was 13 years ago and nothing has changed.  We know the scientific fraud perpetrated to promote global warming initiatives, we know alternative energy is a bust, we know the EPA is corrupt to it's core, we know sustainability is a code word for the imposition of big government tyranny, and we knew it 13 years ago. 

So why are we still listening to these misfits promoting it.  Nitwits like John Kerry who thinks the world would like Russia better if they were more concerned about emissions.  How delusional is this man?  However, we know two things for sure from that.  Kerry is a blithering idiot, and we dodged a gigantic bullet when it wasn't elected President.  We can thank the Swift Boaters for that, not Karl Rove.  

No matter what the media and others regurgitate about ‘science,’ it’s always about money and control - People should know by now that they can’t trust so-called experts, and they certainly should not believe anyone who makes absurd claims in the name of “science.” ......

Whether it's endangered species, global warming, endocrine disruption, or any other green meme, it all ended up being lies, and many times promoted by scientists who abandoned truth in favor of grant money.  And the EPA has been party to this, and as my now passed friend Jay Lehr, one of the founders of EPA, the EPA needs to be dismantled.

The end of the Chevron Deference should help to end a lot of the tyranny of these agencies. but the question I keep coming back to is now that we know all their claims were lies, and government agencies, and the heads of these agencies had to know their claims were lies, how do we make it right?  

• When will someone finally realize all these environmental movements are blatantly promoting fraud.  The last I heard fraud is a crime?
• When will someone finally realize it's only these green organizations who are promoting fraud, but also those who fund them, and the agencies that enable them?
• When will someone finally realize this is all part of a massive international criminal enterprise, and decide an equally massive RICO investigation is needed?  
• When will someone finally realize someone needs to be sent to prison over all this?

As I watch the events unfolding all around the world I look at those who are in leadership roles, and I can't help but think of the words of one of my personal heroes, Col. John Boyd who said:   "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go."..... "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

Definition leads to clarity, and it's clear the time as come to make the decision do properly define these people as the enemy of all mankind, with dark pursuits, and darker goals.  

Update:  Talk about fraud!  The Ninth Circuit shoots down COVID vaccine.  The COVID shot was put on trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and coming from California the result might surprise you.  Three of four judges agree it was never a “traditional vaccine” and therefore could not legally be mandated. ....

I really like seeing this as so many of us were saying this from very early on and criticized .... seriously criticized, including by scientists who until then worked together to expose junk science.  Now I really do want someone to go to jail as untold numbers are people are dying from these false vaccines that were in reality gene manipulating chemical compounds. 

Every Leftist Cause Begins as Humanitarianism and Ends as Terrorism

“Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death; – the last, much the easiest to bestow, O Guillotine! —A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

 

Every leftist cause is founded on empathy.

The quintessential leftist, no matter how much blood eventually spatters his hands, starts off by caring a great deal about other people. His heart bleeds for the oppressed, the workers and the peasants, for racial and sexual minorities, and for all the oppressed peoples of the world.

The ideological fashions may change but the story is always told the same way.

Somewhere there is an oppressed group to be liberated. And he, she or they is the one to fight for their liberation. Along the way that exquisite sensitivity which may lead an upper class Ivy Leaguer to learn all about the customs and suffering of black transgender men in Detroit or Hamas terrorists in Gaza congeals into an equal insensitivity for the suffering of his targets.

And then people die. Sometimes it’s those he considers the oppressed or the oppressors. Usually both. The humanitarians become terrorists and their revolutions lead to tyranny.

The opposite of tyranny isn’t revolution just as the opposite of empathy isn’t a lack of caring. They are both circles. Revolutions make tyrannies and empathy leads to cruelty. While there is a small subset of humanity that genuinely lacks empathy, most of the ideological bloodshed of the last century and this one was committed by men and women who cared far too much.

Those who care too much will eventually care enough to kill.

That is the argument that has been made in defense of every murderous leftist cause and is currently being made for Hamas. If you really care about the suffering in Gaza, you too would set yourself on fire or burn Israeli families alive in their homes. If you really care, you won’t care.

Genuine humanitarians can exhaust themselves caring too much. But those are the types of people who stay up nights helping others. Some of this type can be recruited into leftist movements, but the average leftist is a deeply insincere humanitarian who cares about others only as a vehicle for developing an identity and asserting it on a public stage.

Leftists genuinely do care a lot. They care about rising oceans, polar bears, women in hijabs, men in dresses, drug dealers in the ghetto and eco-terrorists in prison, racist highways and dead terrorists, and if you think of something that they don’t care about yet, they will soon.

As long as it fits the larger agenda of asserting their will over society from a moral high ground.

That is why they also don’t care about the horrifying death toll among young black men from crime, how many Muslims are being killed by Muslim governments or the state of the gay rights movement in Marxist dictatorships. If the state of oppression does not conform to the narrative of external social oppression to be overthrown by a liberation movement it is useless to the political movement and to the individual ego of the aspiring freedom fighter.

To a genuine humanitarian, the oppressed are an end, but to a leftist they are a means. A leftist cares a great deal about a coal miner until he votes for Trump or a black man until he runs as a Republican. Or until, even through no fault of his own, like the coal miners and steelworkers for whom leftists once bled, he is replaced by a new pathway to the ultimate revolution.

It is not truly the workers and peasants, the transgenders and the terrorists, whom the leftist cares about. They humanize, articulate and personalize the revolutionary mandate whose purpose is not to save, but to destroy everything about a world that doesn’t care as much.

The more the leftist cares, the worse the atrocities he can justify with his boundless caring.

That the caring rarely leads to anything useful is the entire point. Empathy for the leftist is a narrative point. Really fixing anything robs him of his motivation. That is why the standard leftist position is that black people are as oppressed today as they were under segregation. If they were to admit that black people were equal and free, what would they do with their time?

Successful leftist movements seize power. They fix nothing and repair nothing because caring is a means for the individual ego and the collective one. Every leftist is a heroic freedom fighter who wants to be the king. He pretends he wants to save the world when he’s out to rule it.

Leftist violence is not the outcry of the oppressed, but the mandate of the oppressors.

That is why every leftist cause begins as humanitarianism and ends in terrorism. Humanitarianism and terrorism don’t contradict each other, they complement one another. There could be no terrorism without humanitarianism. Terrorism is not an accidental sidetrack, but the next phase of a three step process that then ends with tyranny or defeat.

When a leftist starts caring about something, it will, given enough time, end in mass murder.

It’s not because he can’t feel your pain, it’s because he’s too busy feeling someone else’s pain so he doesn’t feel yours when he comes after you. Much as the best way to drown out a signal is with noise, the best way to drown out empathy is with lots more empathy.

The leftist cares about so many people and things that he can’t feel anything when it comes to his real targets. Human suffering has become so much noise that he picks and chooses which strands to isolate and listen to based on ideological grounds. Leftist empathy doesn’t sensitize, it desensitizes by design. Given a large enough palette, the leftist can vandalize art, bomb events and assault people because he’s trying to save millions, billions and the entire planet.

But the only one he’s really trying to save is himself from his own boring mediocrity.

The upper class leftist revolutionary, unable to accomplish anything of worth or become anyone of note, sets out to subjugate the world. His empathy for people whom he has never met instantly makes him a wiser and deeper person. And before you know it, he’s cheering Hamas.

And it’s all because he cares so much.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

Radical Leftists Claim Oil Companies Are Committing Climate Murder

They’re gaslighting voters and consumers – when the real mass killers are environmentalists

By Paul Driessen

We’re constantly told fossil fuel use is causing an existential climate crisis, extreme weather, worsening wildfires, and more frequent and intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts. 

Actual temperature, storm and other records provide no support for these claims. They certainly don’t back up ludicrous assertions that burning coal, oil and natural gas – and even human breathing and baking pizzas in wood-fired ovens – are causing countless alleged calamities: such as slowing Earth’s rotation, thereby affecting scientific time clocks (by one second). 

The claims are based primarily on computer models that erroneously assume carbon dioxide and a few other “greenhouse gases” (0.05% of Earth’s atmosphere, in total) control the climate, while the sun plays virtually no role, urban heat islands are inconsequential, and incompetent forest management is irrelevant. 

It’s gaslighting: perversions of truth designed to make us guilt-ridden, willing to slash our living standards, and happy to keep poor countries energy-deprived and impoverished. 

In the USA and worldwide, fossil fuels still provide 80% of total energy. They’re also the foundation for our economy, living standards, health and longevity – and over 6,000 vital products, including plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cell phones, eyeglasses, fertilizers and wind turbine blades. 

“Earth-friendly” wind and solar installations would blanket millions of acres of farmland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats; require billions of tons of ores; generate billions of tons of toxic water and air pollution from mining and manufacturing; and send electricity prices skyrocketing to pay for expensive battery or gas backup systems, and extensive new transmission lines and grid upgrades. 

Climate Defiance, Extinction Rebellion and other radical groups nevertheless block pipelines, rant and rampage through our streets, deface priceless artwork, and glue themselves to roads and statues, to intimidate legislators and regulators. 

Others file endless lawsuits to bankrupt fossil fuel projects and promote their twisted views about “climate justice.” Their latest scheme could be viewed as the culmination of their self-indoctrination. 

A recent Harvard Environmental Law Review article proposes prosecuting major oil companies for “climate homicide” and “mass murder” – for supposedly killing people, by raising global temperatures and sea levels, and causing deadlier hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, blizzards and wildfires. 

Media outlets eagerly promoted the claims – and Soros-funded prosecutors will undoubtedly be thrilled to indict ExxonMobil and other companies, once they’ve put more flash-mob thieves back on our streets. 

But not even these prosecutors – or any judge, jury or “expert witness” – can separate natural from human causes of modern climate change. Nor can they calculate fractions of manmade-climate-change-induced disasters attributable to coal, oil, gas, dung, or “renewable” energy mining and manufacturing; to China and India versus Europe and the United States; or certainly to specific energy companies. 

What they really don’t want addressed in this “climate homicide” discussion, however, is who is actually committing mass murder, especially of women and children, people with disabilities, people of color and other “particularly threatened” groups so supposedly beloved by climate justice warriors. 

My book, Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death, forcefully demonstrates that it is these self-righteous climate and environmental activists, and those who fund them, that are callously causing the eco-murder deaths of millions every year – and setting the stage for dramatically more in the future. 

These environmentalist death tolls have worsened, as greens became wealthier, more powerful, more fanatical, and more influential with and within US, EU and UN government agencies. 

More than 750 million people still have no access to electricity; nearly 2 billion have only sporadic access to barely enough electricity to charge cell phones and power a lightbulb or 1-cubic-foot refrigerator – and no juice for modern homes, schools and hospitals, water purification, or factories and other job-creating businesses. 

These people are forced to heat and cook with wood, charcoal or animal dung, inhaling noxious fumes that cause millions of deaths annually from respiratory diseases. Millions more die annually from intestinal diseases due to contaminated water and spoiled food, due to energy deprivation. 

Green fanatics perpetuate the death tolls, by battling anything except grossly insufficient, weather-dependent wind and solar power. (In European and other modern countries, people die of heatstroke when they cannot get or afford air conditioning; nine times more die from cold – from hypothermia and illnesses they’d normally survive if they could afford to heat their homes properly.) 

The fanatics also wage campaigns to deny Third World people access to insecticides and spatial insect repellants that would control disease-carrying flies and mosquitoes and even modern farming practices and technologies. Millions more thus die every year from diseases that are readily preventable or could be cured in modern hospitals (that don’t exist). 

No wonder developing nations increasingly reject Western carbon colonialism.

Radical food groups despise genetically engineered crops that multiply crop yields, survive droughts and slash pesticide spraying by 75% or more. They vilify Golden Rice, which enables malnourished children to avoid Vitamin A Deficiency, blindness and death. 

They demand “AgroEcology,” which rejects virtually everything that helps modern farmers feed billions more people with less acreage and water, and could largely eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The perverse movement rabidly opposes biotechnology, chemical insecticides, nitrogen fertilizers, and even hybrid seeds, monoculture farming and mechanized equipment like tractors. 

It demands “food sovereignty” for impoverished, malnourished Africans, Asians and Latin Americans – the right to “define their own food and agriculture systems” and have “healthy and culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods.” 

Even more bizarre and frightening, major philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation and Walton Family Foundation support this craziness! So do the World Bank and many UN agencies. 

They say the world’s food production systems should be “aligned” with the purely arbitrary goal of preventing more than 1.5ºC of global warming since 1850, by “phasing out fossil fuel use, especially fossil-fuel-based chemicals in industrial agriculture.” 

Farmers who want to “define their own food and agriculture systems” by choosing modern technologies and practices get ostracized instead of supported. 

It’s increasingly obvious that climate fear-mongering and GIGO computer models have replaced evidence-based science, history, human nutrition needs and traditional ethical principles. 

But on a more positive note, climate cultists chomping at the bit to see oil companies prosecuted for climate murder should be careful what they wish for. Such a precedent could put eco-imperialists and their financiers on trial for manslaughter on a truly horrific scale. 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of articles and books on environmental, climate and human rights issues.

How Do You Kill 7.5 Billion People?

By Rich Kozlovich

Let's start with this foundational fact.  Environmentalism, leftism, socialism, and a host of other ism's are in fact neo-pagan secular religions of death, and cultural suicide, and green paganism.   On April 20, 2024 Ray DiLorenzo published this piece,  How Do You Kill 7.5 Billion People?, saying:

Globalists want us dead. The World Economic Forum (WEF) has stated many times in print and in speeches that the planet is overpopulated and that its survival depends on controlling climate change, reducing population, controlling food supply, and our bad habits like owning cars.  This has not been an easy article to write or research. Many people and entities that we trusted are suspected of such depraved activity; it would be difficult to find an equal in human history.........You start by frightening people and creating an atmosphere of crisis.

He went on to cite Jane Goodall, who felt all our environmental problems were due to entirely too many people, and the world needs to reduce it's population to a level that existed 500 year ago.  The means eliminating 7.5 billion people. And that's from the "moderates" in the green movement.  The radicals want mankind eliminated, and understand this, the moderates never attack them for their views.  

We're doomed, doomed I tell you.  At least that's the Never Ending Story of the left.  

We're running out of fossil fuels, which has been proven not only wrong, but stupid. We have massive traditional energy sources, including oil.  Oil isn't a fossil fuel.  I subscribe to the abiotic abyssal abiotic theory of petroleum, which means oil is a naturally occurring substance emanating up from the Earth's crust, and renews itself constantly, as has occurred in some previously depleted wells.

Global warming will destroy the world.  Only now it's anthropogenic climate change.  Why  Because reality just refuses to play by the rules and follow their seriously flawed computer models, which have now all been shown to be false. 

Then there was covid, which had a 99.7% recovery rate, and make no mistake, all that quarantining, masking, shots, social distancing, lockdowns were nothing short of a test run for some other "crisis" event to control every aspect of human activity.   The Asian Flu of 1957/58 was probably far worse, and I remember those years, and no one thought to close the schools, businesses, and shut down the world.  But in those days the world wasn't being run by treasonous left wing misanthropes.   As the author says, "covid was the flu with better marketing". 

At the end of WWII the world's population was approximately two billion people, and it took thousands of years to get there.  In less than 75 years the world population has soared to just under 8 billion people.   How did that happen?  Chemistry, as in pesticides, fertilizers, medicines, food production, and most of all, energy.  Vast amounts of readily available inexpensive energy, all of which the left, especially the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization wants to seriously restrict.   

• WEF Pushes Ban on Home-Grown Food to ‘Fight Climate Change’
• Green Dreams and Starvation Nightmares

Force everyone to take shots they're calling vaccines, when in reality, they are not true vaccines, but gene altering chemical compounds that has had a massively negative impact on public health, and will continue to do so for decades to come.  Force everyone into cities with walking distance to get all they need, called "15 minute neighborhoods". That makes it so much easier to track what you do, and who you do it with.   Force everyone, except the elite, to eat bugs instead of meat, pass curfew laws, keep humanity dependent, but most importantly, keep them scared and complaint.

In this environment, they will have control over the population. Abortion up until the time of birth, or even after, will be just fine. Encouraging homosexuality, and transgenderism, the mutilation of young people, and/or surgical sterility will greatly improve anyone's social credit score. Yes, there will be a social credit system. They know how to do it. China has taught them well.u get the idea. It was better that way. It keeps the populace scared and compliant.

In my lifetime we've gone from the idea that a moral and responsible population cares for those with depression, going deaf, mental issues, or can't get around without a wheel chair, well, no longer!  Under the regime they desire, a socialistic central planning world wide system of governance, which the left wishes to impose on humanity, if you can't see, can't take care of your daily needs, "can't fill out forms or use a computer, have PTSD, autism, dyslexia, ADHD, and any problem communicating with people", you're a candidate for euthanasia.  After all:

"Yuval Noah Harari, one of the WEF's top advisors, calls these people  'useless eaters.' That is, people who will have no useful purpose in the 4th Industrial Revolution they are so looking forward to."

So, it's okay to just kill them, and we know it can be done, China has shown them the way, the nation Klaus Schwab, the head of the WEF, thinks is the ideal form of government. 

The author goes on to discuss euthanasia, and the value that has in organ transplants, a vastly profitable business, so it's now being encouraged, and will be encouraged all the more, and I'm willing to bet the euthanasia propaganda will state in the public education system, starting in grade school.  The author even suggests:

I would imagine, in the future, convincing a loved one to end it all may mean a cash payment, a higher social credit score, or awarded better housing.

A research paper in Canada concluded that euthanasia could dramatically reduce healthcare costs. In Holland, there is a suggestion to make euthanasia available for people over 70 who are feeling just 'a bit worn out'. (Expose)

It is legal in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Ecuador, and parts of Australia. It is also legal in several U.S. states, although it's called medical-aid-in-dying (MAID): Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, D.C., Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, and New Mexico. It is pending in: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

A doctor offered death-by-doctor to a woman who just wanted a wheelchair ramp to her home.

He ends his article with this admonishment:

 

Learn how to say NO! As Reagan used to say, "Trust, but verify." In this case, the government, all medical authorities, and the media. By all means, verify what you are told, use your own good judgment, and always trust in GOD!

 

Going Green is a Pagan Religious Journey

By Rich Kozlovich 

First, let's establish the logical foundation for this article.  The modern green movement is a pagan religious movement and a scion of leftist misanthropic insanity, with academia used as an important primary tool to promote this insanity, including in science related fields.  

 

On April 3, 2024 this article appeared Mandatory ‘prayer’ to ‘Mama Earth’ in UCLA med school ‘structural racism’ class, and get a load of the nitwit they brought in to lead this propaganda class that was forced on first year medical students.

Calling herself a poverty scholar...whatever the heck that means....she led the class in a prayer to "Mama Earth", and to "the ancestors", to "black, brown, and houseless (sic) people", that capitalism and private property were evil, and on their knees mind you.  Then ranted about justice for Palestinians, and later claiming modern medicine is "white science".  All of which was followed by a second prayer.  

FOLKS........WE HAVE LOST OUR MINDS! 

The EPA hasn't done anything worthwhile since 1980, and needs to be dismantled. Bold?  Well, that was the view of my now passed friend Dr. Jay Lehr, one of the founders of EPA, who put together a five year plan to do it.  

New EPA Emissions Standards Defy Reality - The recent stringent Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon emissions standards for internal combustion engines defy economic realities. The EPA would have us believe that coercing folks to buy electric vehicles (EV) will somehow reduce alleged climate change extremes. The new rules will negatively affect California and the entire nation. Obviously, most folks want to maintain clean air, land, and water ecosystems. However, scientists haven’t agreed on what degree human activity adversely impacts global climate change as opposed to natural causes for extreme climate events. Several dire predictions of rising seas haven’t panned out over several decades, while cooling and warming trends haven’t been too much out of the ordinary.

I keep updated gazettes in queue in order to save as many articles as I can avoiding the past problem I created for myself with a massive number of "draft" articles, and that draft file is still massive, but I'm whittling it down.  For years P&D was a "green issues" only blog but it became obvious "green" was nothing more than a sect of leftism, ergo, to discuss green meant taking on leftist insanity. 

Recently there was an earthquake in New Jersey, and Nike Pope asked readers if the felt like they were losing brain cells, and my way of comparison made it clear their brain cells were totally safe compared to Christina Khalil who is running for the U.S. Senate to take Bob Menendez' seat.  I wonder.  Is stupid better than corrupt?  Just a thought.  

Everyone knows there's no green issue that's too small for California to tackle.  So why is San Francisco allowed to dump 1.2 billion gallons of raw sewage and trash-filled runoff into San Francisco bay each year?

As President Trump coined: “Everything woke turns to s–t.” Literally. So much for the idea of a clean planet, leftists only beget absolute filth; any guesses as to what that rainwater runoff is carrying into the bay?

In California virtually everything that makes modern civilization possible is under attack, yet everything leftism, and it's scion environmentalism, with their utopian delusions promotes, are always disasters.

;

Let's not just pick on California, although they deserve it, let's not lose sight that green is a ubiquitous neo-pagan secular nature worshiping religious movement, so let's go to New York, where the greenies cheered when New York shut down a nuclear power plant, but guess what happened next?  Their claims the emissions would go down and electricity costs would go up turned out to be....wrong!  That is absolutely the one thing they excel at.   Being wrong....they almost have a monopoly on being wrong.  The second thing they excel at is lying, lies of commission and lied of omission.  So why do we listen to them?  Oh, wait I know.  If we listen to what they say and want,  then we merely do the opposite in order to be successful.  Sounds like a winner to me.  

Does everyone remember when the greenies destroyed the logging industry in the North West claiming logging was destroying the spotted owl population?  And of course under the insanity of the Endangered Species Act, the spotted owl became a religious icon and no cost was too great to save them.   But guess what?  They were wrong.... again....., it turns out it was the barred owl that was destroying the spotted owl population, not logging.  But now it's been determined the the barred owls violate DEI standards!  So, now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to eradicate around 500,000 barred owls in California, Oregon, and Washington in order to have "equity" for the spotted owl.  

This delusional worship of nature isn't just out of the distant past led by ignorant tree worshiping druids, it's happening right here, right now.  It turns out there are those who demand whales be accorded the status of, Legal Personhood, and rights to go along with that status, such as:

“Those rights include the right to freedom of movement, to natural behavior development, to cultural expression, (whatever that means) which includes their language, to a healthy environment, healthy oceans, and, indeed, the restoration of their populations....”

Okay, I agree whales are in need of worldwide protection, but what is the reason behind this?  It turns out some Polynesians consider whales to be "sacred ancestors".  Green is a pagan religious movement, and it gets really insane.

We have animals with rights and lands that are sacred, all of which must be protected from the "new ways".  In France rats have rights, and in 2012, so too in Washington DC, and in 2009, and plants now have rights.   The Swiss, normally a sensible people, decided plants need to be accorded dignity.... yep you got it....  dignity.

They added an amendment to a law that requires the Swiss to recognize the dignity of all living things to include…..plants. Yes, even the “decapitation” of wildflowers at the roadside “without rational reason”, will be punished.

In New York activists tried to have chimpanzees declared human, and my view of this was:

What I think is truly telling is the fact this actually made it through the court system to New York's Supreme Court.  Why's that telling?  Because it's a demonstration of the irrational societal paradigms infesting the nation's thinking today. The West, especially Europe, has abandoned the Judaic/Christian values and principles that have been foundational to our society.  The only stable moral foundation the world has known.  What happens when a stable moral foundation is abandoned?  Then everything and nothing is acceptable.  Isn't that what we're seeing everywhere, especially at America's schools of "higher" education? 

Well, I like John Hinderaker's March 29 commentary,  Three Cheers For Oil saying:

Oil is the Earth’s miracle substance. Robert Bryce exposes the foolishness of those who attack oil.....Petroleum will not be replaced by wind, solar and batteries. Ever. It could be replaced by nuclear power, but we have a long way to go before that happens. Meanwhile, let’s celebrate oil, which has done more to improve human life than all the liberal measures enacted by all governments in history, put together.

“Green” philosophic nature worship isn’t new. Historically the threads of green philosophical writings, an the idea that the earth and nature is superior to man, goes back to the most ancient times.  All religion based.

Make no mistake about this.  Irrespective of one's personal beliefs, this is a battle between neo-paganism, i.e. eco-religion, that makes mankind a creation of nature versus the traditional Judaic-Christian values where the Earth was created for mankind. 

If alive today, the ancient druids would be very comfortable with the modern green movement, especially with the idea that people have to be sacrificed.  Greenies are modern druids.  And that's the real foundation of environmentalism.  Not saving the environment, but destroying humanity.  The druids and modern greenies share the sacrament of human sacrifice, the modern green movement is nothing short of Green Paganism!

What could happen if we just stopped oil? Six billion might die

December 20, 2023 By Paul Homewood

Many of us have been exasperated by the antics of Just Stop Oil protesters. Now, I believe that these are well-meaning and committed to their cause and I am sure that they think that they are trying to save the planet in the best way they can think of – gain publicity, get people talking and influence politicians. But what would happen if we literally just stopped oil tomorrow and did without the natural resources on which the world, its economies and populations depend? The answer: most likely six billion people would die within a year. 

I am going to assume the “oil” in Just Stop Oil means fossil fuels – so oil, gas and coal. I am also going to assume that we have today’s technological knowledge and infrastructure, so we are talking about stopping fossil fuels now, not at some unspecified time in the future.

Day 1 – no more mining of coal; the world’s oil wells shut down; the world’s gas fields likewise. The first to feel the change would be gas users.....................Day 365 – perhaps a further two billion people would have starved or frozen to death, leaving, say, two billion left alive; remaining food stocks would have been exhausted or spoiled, and the inevitable breakdown of law and order would have meant many would meet a violent end..................But what if they are wrong? It will be too late in ten years time to suddenly stand up and say “Sorry, we got it wrong. Can we have some more fossil fuels please?”...........To Read More.....

A Prince Who Was Potty, is Now a King Who is Potty, and Dangerously So!

By Rich Kozlovich 

This from a piece I wrote in 2014, and  given his recent lunatic blathering at COP 28, I think this is information that needs to be brought forward to reaffirm the fact a Prince who was potty, is now a King who is still potty, and is still dangerously so.  

When he was Prince Charles he was criticized a lot over the years, including for claiming how ‘crucial’ it is to talk to plants. He claims:

"I happily talk to the plants and trees, and listen to them. I think it's absolutely crucial," "Everything I've done here, it's like almost with your children. Every tree has a meaning for me."

I’m willing to bet the ancient Druids felt the same way.   One thing we must come to understand about these ‘green’ loons is this.  The issue is now and has always been, the battle between nature worshipers and worshipers of God. Modern environmentalism is nothing more than a secular neo-pagan nature worshiping movement that is irrational, misanthropic and morally defective, dressed up to appear modern and science based in its approach and thinking.

I’ve been reading R. Mark Musser’s Nazi Oaks, which outlines the historical accuracy of my statement. The policies, philosophy and programs promoted by the Green movement in the West, including the Prince’s, originated in the dark mist covered forests of ancient Germania and the nature worship of the ancient Celtic religion of the Druids, who were the educated, professional class of their culture, and, whose function was to be the intermediaries between the gods and mankind. They would make the decisions for their people.  Sound familiar?

In the mid to late 1800’s German philosophers attempted to define these pagan originated concepts into a modern philosophy, and people like Martin Heidegger, who promoted his green claptrap well into the 20^th century, helped to develop it into codified law under the Nazis. Everything the green movement has espoused in modern times is nothing more than a carbon copy of Nazi green laws, including the Precautionary Principle.

It has been claimed that the Precautionary Principle originated in the 1970's, with the German green movement and the influence of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. That may have been a strong influence for adopting it in the Maastricht treaty, but while the origin is clearly German, the philosophy goes back much further. According to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen in a chapter which appeared in the book “Interpreting the Precautionary Principle” edited by Tim O’Riordan and James Cameron, the Precautionary Principle;

“evolved out of the German Socio-legal tradition, created in the heyday of democratic socialism in the 1930’s, centering on the concept of good household management. This was regarded as a constructive partnership between the individual, the economy and the state to manage change so as to improve the lot of both society and the natural world upon which it deepened for survival. This invested the precautionary principle with a managerial or programmable quality, a purposeful role in guiding future political and regularity action.

In short, under the concept of Precautionary Principle, which no matter what is claimed is virtually indefinable in the real world, or if you will, unendingly re-definable according to someone's whims, was codifying central planning for everything by elitists bureaucrats that “know best” for everyone and who would make all the decisions using ‘saving the planet’ as a theme to justify tyranny. Remember who ran Germany in the 1930’s? Adolph Hitler! A monstrous incompetent whose:

“Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick considered those who were mentally ill, incurable sick or handicapped to be useless eaters”. He was one of the primary authors of Nazi euthanasia law. Accordingly his contribution to “Nazism was to envisage the monstrous and cloak it in law”.

Please keep that sentence in mind as we go along.  The Prince has been quoted as saying:

 "I got a lot of flak for a lot of things”….."I mean, potty this, potty that, loony this, loony that." 

Well, maybe there’s a reason for those expressed views.  They're accurate!

This is a future monarch who privately ‘consorts’ with government ministers to promote his pet policies, including his views on climate change, modern agricultural practices, genetically modified organisms, which he claims:

 “despite all evidence to the contrary, will lead to mass extinction of our species”. 

And he knew this how?  If all the evidence was to the contrary, how does he justify saying all that will lead to the extinction of our species?    One journalist, Jeff Randall, suggested to the Prince that the future of farming perhaps should be with industrial-scale production, the Prince 'exploded' saying:

'That would be the complete destruction of everything!'  

Okay, and just how is that destruction to come about, and what is the "everything" he's so worried about?  Just like all these leftist loons he's strong on emotional and rhetoric, but stunningly low on facts, and/or specifics.  If he wasn't a royal would any rational person listen to anything he says?   And yet after all his blathering over the years he was frustrated because no one in government will go along with his ‘potty’ views on things like 'complementary medicine’, which would include coffee enemas as a cure for cancer.  Coffee enemas for a cure for cancer, imagine that. 

Quite frankly, before Prince Charles, I never understood why the British has a Constitutional Monarchy that’s not permitted to express opinions, privately or publicly.  Now I know.

It’s claimed Charles isn’t an unkind man, in fact it appears just the opposite according to one writer, but the caliber of his mind must be called into question. It’s been said:

“If you are waiting to be the King of the United Kingdom, and you’ve waited a very long time, you genuinely have to engage with something or you’d go spare.” 

Well, perhaps that’s the problem. This is man who has lived an amazingly privileged life, for which he did nothing to earn, and desperately desires to be meaningful.  Well, he chose poorly, and from my viewpoint, he’s a failure, and I think that's the way he'll go down in history!

One writer noted;

“While he is always accorded the reputation of being a 'progressive', in fact, he is a spectacularly reactionary figure, whose ideal vision of Britain is a kind of pre-industrial paradise — which never existed.“

There are a number of things we know for sure. The policies Charles promotes are:

“renewable energy only, no pesticides, no industrial-scale farming — would lead to a crippling increase in the prices of everything from home heating to the cereal we feed our children.” “The point is that all the technological advances the Prince detests have been designed to reduce the cost of living for the public. Yes, the companies that make those breakthroughs are motivated above all by the desire to increase profits — but that does not make their achievements contemptible. “

As for Nobel-Prize winner Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution which saved untold millions in India - the Prince denounced it. Truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality, and the ‘self sufficient and sustainable’ practices the Prince promotes “slaughtered millions of populations on the subcontinent”. Is it possible he can’t be aware of that? That’s a historical fact he must be aware of.  The Prince is, as all the world’s leaders, at the center of the information world.  How can he be unaware of the history of what occurred before modern agriculture?

Norman Borlaug was what Prince Charles would love to be: A truly great man!  Who may have been the greatest man to live in the 20^th century for his “Green Revolution”, possibly saving the lives of a billion people from starvation. A man who earned all the accolades accorded to him including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal and India’s second highest civilian honor, the Padma Vibhushan.

When Borlaug's work has been challenged by these prominent pampered people like the Prince he states:

'They have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be outraged that fashionable elitists were trying to deny them these things.”

Charles is dangerous in a number of ways because he has a platform on the world's stage:

1. He’s is either historically ignorant, or chooses to be.  
2. He is intellectually and scientifically ignorant, or chooses to be.    
3. He must be morally clueless, and clearly chooses to be.
4. He’s chosen to ignore the history and science showing all his views are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
   

Charles and his misanthropic cohorts make the claim they’re saving the planet, but the reality is they’re codifying or attempting to codify laws that would be monstrous to billions of people. They’re not saving the planet they’re attempting to impose a worldwide government that will plan and execute laws at the expense of the people living on it. The number one thought that's shared by all these greenies is there are too many people on the planet.  The 'moderates' among them wish to eliminate between four and five billion people.  The minority wishes for mankind to cease to exist.   The ancient druids would be totally comfortable with the modern green movement since they share the need for human sacrifice. 

Just like the Nazis, the green movement, along with the wealthy elite pushing these insane initiatives, "envisage the monstrous and cloak it in law”.  I've often wondered if a man that clueless could be elected to a position of power and authority, and then I found out.  Joe Biden became President of the United States.

PETA is Another Name for Misanthropy

By Rich Kozlovich

I originally published this on Friday, April 21, 2006 and again on September 3, 2009, and for some reason it's been hit a lot recently, along with some other old articles dealing with animal rights issues, such as, Endangered Species Act, and Jim Beer's excellent article, How Bureaucrats, Anarchists and Communists Use Wolves To Establish Tyranny, which I've also republished.  

So, here it is again, and updated.  

A misanthrope is somebody who hates people.  Somebody who hates humanity, or who dislikes and distrusts other people and tends to avoid them.  The next time you see a Hollywood star proudly telling everyone how much they support animal rights and they are proud members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), remember the quotes listed below from an April 15, 2006 article by Fred Geilow.  (Editor's Note: After all these years the link no longer works so I've removed it.  RK) 

Remember, this is who these people really are.

• "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth." PETA statement
• "I don't believe human beings have the "right to life." That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig, is a dog, is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director
• "It would be great if all the fast food outlets' slaughterhouses, laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. "Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman
• "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children, than on animals." PETA statement
• "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would... Only 7 percent of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box, and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species, until all hunting is stopped in California. Then, we will take it state by state." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S.
• "Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Peter Singer, known as the "Father of Animal Rights"
• "To those people who say, "My father is alive because of animal experimentation," I say, "Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live." Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of tradeoff." Bill Maher
• "Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director
• "Chickens are interesting individuals, who have as much right not to be cooked and eaten as a dog, or a cat, or even a human being." Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman
• "Ants are sentient beings, like we are, and have a right to life like we do, and they shouldn't be shown the level of disrespect the producers of ant farms show them." Stephanie Boyles, PETA
• "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, vice president, Humane Society of the United States
• "We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA, and subsequently the head of an animal-rights fundraising company
• "I think it is speciesist [someone who accepts human domination over animals] to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day, because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them." Karen Davis, president of the animal rights group, United Poultry Concerns
• "If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person, in terms of legal rights." Steven Wise, Harvard University lecturer, and author of Rattling the Cage
• "Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans." Peter Singer
• "[A]rson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are "acceptable crimes" when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA (This has been used in many areas of the world already, especially labs where animal experimentation has gone on. They have even intimidated individual employees at their homes as well as attacking the facilities. There has even been talk about assassinating researchers.)
• "If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justified solution." Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for PCRM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine], a front group for PETA.

After I published this in 2009 I had one comment from a reader then saying:

Unknown September 29, 2009 at 6:55 AM:  I think that a spectrum of rhetoric is sometimes useful to shake people up. Recall a time when children and wives were the property of parents and husbands, without individual rights. It took a lot of fighting and angry rhetoric to shed those long-held ideas.  I think that many of the quotes you cite are hyperbolic rhetorical and unfortunate flourishes, not literal beliefs.

Ignoring the red herring fallacy regarding children and wives, I have some questions.

1. Why would anyone say such things if they didn't really believe them?
2. Since the actions of these individuals reflect their statements, why would we consider them mere hyperbolic rhetoric with unfortunate flourishes?  
   
3. If they don't believe what they're saying here, why should we believe anything they say anywhere about anything?
   
4. When reading this sort of thing do we say to ourselves; are the views expressed here my views?
5. Are the views expressed here shared by most people?
6. Are these views the views of rational people?
7. What do you think their ultimate goals are?
8. Do you think these are the views of misanthropes?
9. Do you think leftism in all of it's manifestations, including environmentalism, is misanthropic?

Let's understand all these groups are scions of socialism, with environmentalism, via their insane global warming initiatives, as the spear point of an effort to impose a socialist system of worldwide governance under the auspices of the most corrupt, incompetent, and socially destructive organization the world has ever known.  The United Nations.  It really is that simple. 

 

Indi Gregory: Third Infant to Die at Hands of UK Government

ByLiliana Zylstra November 16, 2023

Good parents do everything in their power to protect their children. But what happens when the government takes that power away? Once again, the United Kingdom has given us the answer.  Dean Gregory and Claire Staniforth, a British couple from the Derbyshire region, are grieving the death of their infant daughter Indi, who passed away on Nov. 13 after suffering from a mitochondrial disease. But baby Indi’s illness isn’t what killed her. The blames lies at the feet of the U.K. government. 

Doctors from the National Health Service (NHS) determined that Indi’s treatment at the Queen’s Medical Centre could no longer continue, citing concerns about the pain caused by “prolong[ing]” her life. The case went to the Family Division of the High Court in London, where a doctor (unnamed in media reports) reported, “We feel very sad…. We have tried to treat [Indi] to the best of our abilities.” Despite that fatal determination, Indi’s parents felt her life was worth fighting for. “Our daughter responds to us,” pleaded her father, “and on her good days, she is babbling, making noises, moving all her limbs…. We know she is disabled, but you don’t just let disabled people die. We just want to give her a chance.”

That chance was stolen from Indi and her parents. Not only was she denied life-saving treatment from the NHS, but she was also cruelly prevented from obtaining it elsewhere. In her final days, Indi and her family became prisoners of the U.K. government. 

Indi was offered an alternative by the Italian government and the Vatican. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offered not only free health care to the child but even transportation and Italian citizenship. Meloni urged the British government to “defend the right of [Indi’s] mom and dad to do whatever they can for her.” In response, Gregory and Staniforth jumped at the lifeline. They requested that their daughter be allowed to be treated at Rome’s renowned Bambino Gesù (Baby Jesus) Pediatric Hospital, which is “under the jurisdiction of the Holy See.” According to the Washington Post, doctors there offered a treatment that they said “would ‘more likely than not’ enable Indi to survive without artificial ventilation.”

Unfortunately, Justice Robert Peel denied the request, claiming that Indi’s “best interests” would be served by withdrawing treatment — that is, by letting her die in Britain. ............To Read More.

 

Life Before Our Modern Era

By Rich Kozlovich 

Before I go into life (BME), before our modern era, let's first ponder this.  At the end of WWII the world's population was approximately two billion people, and it took thousands of years to get there.  In a little over seventy five years the world's population soared to over seven billion people.  Why?  Let's explore this.

We keep hearing from greenies, and now elitists such as those at the , who want us to abandon modern agriculture and eat bugs, and insist we all have to abandon all the things necessary to maintain a modern world. This "Climate Cult" want's the world to abandon our current systems for power generation and embrace "sustainable" energy, such as and solar.  Both of which, if left alone as the only sources for energy creation, would be an abject failure, returning the world to a far more primitive existence, and they have to know that's the end consequence of all these schemes.   The greenie return to nature meme is unending.   So, perhaps we should look at what a more primitive existence would be like.   

 SNEAK PEEK: Here’s What’s Inside the Two-Year ‘Controligarchs’ Investigation

In days gone by before pesticides flies were everywhere, mosquitoes were uncontrolled, uncontrollable, and lice infestations were vast!  All of which were disease spreaders on a massive scale.  Horses were the primary source of transportation, and guess what horses did regularly with total disregard for where they were.  They crapped, right down on the streets.  

Did you ever wonder why older cities had alleys?  That was so the honey dippers could come and clean out the toilets.  Until the 1880's there was was no sewer system for flush toilets, hence, there were no flush toilets, which was invented in the late 1500's but ignored for three hundred years.  There were no bathrooms as we know them.   Outhouses were everywhere, even communal outhouses, which is a shed built over a hole in the ground.  In the cities the toilet was attached to the back of the house accessible via the alley, with a container that could be cleaned out by operators of honey wagons.  

The honey wagon was originally a horse-drawn vehicle that went through back alleys to collect human excreta. Houses at that time did not have flush toilets or indeed any form of indoor sanitation beyond the chamberpot. In rural areas the outhouse (privy) is associated with a pit latrine of various sorts, but many towns and cities depended on some variant of the pail closet, which needed frequent emptying. At each outdoor toilet, the driver (honey dipper) would stop the wagon, flip up the back hatch door (trap-door) of the outhouse, slide out the pail (bucket), pick it up, and dump the contents into one of eight oak half-barrels in the wagon box. The half-barrels had no lids.

All of which was, by out standards, stunningly unsanitary, unhealthy, and drew all kinds of disease spreading vermin, and there was no toilet paper.  Because of these unsanitary conditions it was common for deadly diseases such as cholera to be spread.   While almost no one thinks about cholera in America today, in less developed areas of the world, it can be epidemic, even now.  

The greenies want the world to abandon the use of chlorine in our drinking water, but make no mistake, if we abandon using chlorine in our water America would suffer the same plague suffered by South Americans who bought into their lies regarding chlorine and cancer.   In James Marusek's article, The Dark Side of Deep Ecology he notes:

As Greenpeace's Joe Thornton explains, There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe. Yet chlorination -- considered one of the greatest advances ever in public health and hygiene -- is almost universally accepted as the method of choice for purifying water supplies. In the United States alone, 98 percent of public water systems are purified by chlorine or chlorine-based products. In 1991, an epidemic of cholera started in Peru and spread to the rest of Latin American. This epidemic reached the U.S. in 1992 via an outbreak among 75 commercial airline passengers from Peru. This epidemic is reported to have caused as many as 1 million cases of cholera and as many as 10,000 deaths.

• Dirty Water; Will the United States repeat Peru's chlorine folly?

James ends his article saying; 

Another dark aspect of this religious movement is it spawns religious fanatics, such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), that believe terrorism such as the destruction of property and threatening human lives, are justified in the name of their eco-religious beliefs. 

Why has the world's population soar over the last seventy five years?   Pesticides, modern chemistry including medicine, ample energy production, and advance agricultural techniques, including the use of GMO's, which these misfits demand we abandon.   Clearly, there can be only one conclusion as to the goal of all these insane policy decisions by elitists and environmentalists which can only be one thing. 

Population reduction and control.  

However, if someone thinks that's they way they should live their lives, I'm fine with that.  Let them move to areas where they can live their dream, but I'm betting they won't live all that long, I'm also betting they won't walk the talk because they keep living here.  So, if that's so, and it is, why should we accept the insane demands and standards they tout that can only be viewed as demonic misanthropy?