Daily Archives: June 23, 2012

Hillary: Genocide Makes World Sustainable

Hillary salutes the Fuehrer


I wonder how long we will have to wait before all these rubbish feminists die.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, having access to the best private health care money can buy, might well stay with us for a long time, though one may hope starting from January  2013 in a less dangerous position.

The last antic of the old witch is the assertion that the so-called “reproductive rights” of women – that is: the right to kill their own child in the womb – is key to “sustainable development”.

I can vividly picture the old woman bending in front of the belly of a pregnant, say, Peruvian peasant woman and saying to her “have you thought about the environmental implications of your pregnancy? Will this birth be environmentally sustainable?  Shouldn’t you exercise your reproductive rights instead?” Then she would speak to the baby in the in the womb and say to him “I am so awfully sorry, my dear; but you, your “when” is very wrong and we must, erm, discontinue your mother’s pregnancy”. This, of course, unless the woman believes in that belly there is only a clump of cells.

Of course, the environmental sustainability of the planet can only be achieved if not only one, but a great number of women in the same situation will decide to make the world a more “sustainable” place; which is, then, called (in a broader term) genocide, and it fits wonderfully with the Nazi thinking of your typical environmental nutcase.

In the meantime, politicians and activists of all colours generated considerable amount of Co2 to flow to Rio in order to discuss – among other things – how many babies must be killed in the womb to make the growth sustainable. I wonder how it is that places like Glasgow (excellent infrastructure, you see) never get the honour of hosting such conferences, and the privilege must always go to horrible, horrible cities like Rio, or Cancun, where no one would ever thinking of spending his holidays.

I sometimes wonder whether the world would have been a better place if Obama and Hillary had been aborted; but you see, in those time abortion was simply forbidden, and therefore the chances of birth were rather high. It is a paradox of our times that people like Obama, who today would have an extremely high probability of being aborted – as the bastard of a college whore and her black boy toy, and the product of a liberal environment most certainly encouraging the slut to exercise her “reproductive rights” –  are those who fight the hardest for people like them to be aborted.


Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

The way language influences the political discourse is always a fascinating thing to behold.

I grew up in Italy, where the adjective fascista was considered the height of the offence if you were a leftist and, as a reaction,  a statement of coolness for young people who were conservatively oriented. “Fascist, that new sweater of yours!” we would say to congratulate his or her owner; “Is this your new car? Fascist!” [the car]; “where do you go today, all beautifully fascist?” (“where are you going today, as you are so well-dressed and all trimmed?”). The same word was used, even if deprived of a political connotation – there was no implication whatsoever that the owner of the sweater was, politically, a Fascist – as an insult or a compliment.

The same happens, I think, with the word “gay”, used by a tiny minority of perverts and leftist to refer to…

View original post 689 more words

%d bloggers like this: