The soon-to-be-released encyclical about the environment – no doubt, the biggest collection of rubbish ever published by a Pope – will be presented by three men. One of them if Prof. John Schellnhuber, a well-known climate Nazi.
professor Schnellnhuber should, I think, be posed a simple questions: seen that no one believes that his own fantasy-targets about emission reduction will be reached, where does he think the global population should stabilise to avoid planetary food wars, and how does he think the target should be achieved?
You see, our Enviro-Goebbels is already on record with saying that around 4.5 degrees Celsius of increase in earth temperature would reduce the earth population to around 1 billion. So, if we do not reach the 4, and do not manage to keep the Co2 emissions under control, what is the sustainable earth population at, say, a 2.5 degrees increase in say, anytime between 2070 and 2100? Four billion? Five? Perhaps, if we want to be generous, six? How many million, nay, billion babies will have to be aborted to make this happen? You see: prof Schellnhuber has no doubt at all that a massive global warming is going to happen. He calls nebulous fantasies “physical realities”, as if they were, erm, real! So, in the fantasy world of Mr Schellnhuber – a world, as you will understand, much appreciated by the Evil Clown – a massive adjustment will have to happen anyway: not down to one Billion humans if the worst case scenario does not become reality, but somewhere between the nine Billion projected for 2050 (and the much higher number projected for 2070-2100) and that number.
So, what does the man propose to do to avoid food wars and worldwide tragedies on a lesser, and sustainable, scale than the ones in the 1 Billion scenario? What exactly?
I tell you once again: abortion. Abortion on a scale probably not even Dr Goebbels would have considered human, at least considering the untold number of Aryans it would involve. And please do not hide behind the contraception finger. In England there are in the region of 180,000 abortions a year, and contraception is available in a way that would be almost inconceivably costly to actuate in poor countries. This, of course, leaving behind for a moment the Catholic stance on contraception, in which neither the Pope nor Prof. Schellnhuber (by the by: a Catholic, that one?) are interested.
“But Mundabor! Mundabor! Prof Schellnhuber does not say we must abort billions! He says we must reduce emissions!”
Poppycock. The man may be deluded, but he is not retarded. He knows that his fantasy objectives will not be reached. Never ever. He complains about that very openly, when he says that Western democracies refuse to take his own apocalyptic fantasies (which he calls “physical reality”, so he has no doubt at all they will come to pass) into account in their own planning and legislating activity. Madmen can be very lucid.
Therefore, there can be only one way: reduce the humans now before they kill each other in 50 years’ time. This is the unavoidable conclusion of this environ-mania. This is the only way any thinking man starting from such sick premises can go on thinking in a coherently sick way. This is the only rational consequence of the environ-mania the Evil Clown is so aggressively promoting, out of his own hate for the West and desire of humble self-aggrandisement.
This man, my friends, has played such an important role in the writign of the encyclical, that he will be one of only three relators, and the only layman. An utterly unbelievable Pope has allowed a papal encyclical to be substantially shaped by a man who considers his own fantasies “physical realities”. It beggars belief.
A man can be, at the same time, evil and astonishingly incompetent. If you think of people like Chavez, for example, it is obvious that in these men a strong ideological hate goes hand in hand with an exceptional degree of economic stupidity, and inability to look three inches beyond their nose.
Francis is such a one. He is evil, but he is also plain stupid in his inability to even think three steps further the path he is asking us to take. When one like Francis decides to write an encyclical about the environment, we can’t be surprised one like Prof Schellnhuber will be the one who shapes the most of its “scientific” part.
The blind (religious leaders, and climate bogus scientists) lead the blind. They are so radical (Schellnhuber, because he is; Francis, because he is accomplice, and too stupid to understand he must not link his name to such nutcases) that their “effort” is condemned to failure and ridicule from day one. They do not care. Schnellhuber lives in his fantasy world, and have made a good living out of it. Francis will, like Chavez, push his own form of hatred, uncaring of consequences, for the short term popularity advantages it will give him among his clients (all but the Catholics) and his groupies.
These people are environmental Nazis.
To such a scale, that it is reasonable to say that even Dr Goebbels would have been terrified.
“One in three women will have an abortion by the time they’re 45, and yet we’re treating this like it’s some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than even having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common,” said Kari Ross, who is the spokeswoman for the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF).
I read this here.
Let me rephrase it.
“One in three European Jews will have a death by Holocaust by 1945, and yet we're treating the Final Solution like it's some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common”.
To them, an abortion is something harmless just because it happens millions of times.
I doubt even Dr Goebbels would show such lack of humanity.
The Nazis are among us.
In case you have any doubt Kathleen Sebelius is Goebbels.2, you only need to read her shocking (providing anything concerning that woman can still be defined as “shocking”) affirmation about the fact that the more children you abort, the less Obamacare costs.
This is what she said, verbatim:
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,”
I do not even know when to start.
Firstly, I was under the illusion the Obama government had tried to persuade us they actually wanted to avoid abortions. I know it is a lie, but this is the lie they went around saying. But this is not what Goebbels.2 says. She says contraception directly translates in a reduction of the number of births, which is an economic benefit.
For the first time in history, a country thinks it good to have less children, because it reduces its healthcare costs.
I must, at this point, humbly apologise to Dr Goebbels. He would have considered such talk inhumane.
Secondly, if one follows Goebbels.2’s logic, several avenues to reduce health care costs open themselves. Try this:
the reduction in the number of Alzheimer’s disease patients compensates for the costs of euthanasia
This is exactly the same logic, expressed in exactly the same way.
It doesn’t end here. At the House hearing which originated such brilliant piece of Nazi ideology, one member posed the lady the following question:
“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?”
Sebelius’ answer was:
“Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”
Notice she does not answer the question, recurring to the usual way feminists use whenever they are in trouble: throwing the word “women” around. It was interesting, though, to know the aborted children has a health benefit from being aborted, too, which must be what she meant every time the woman who wants to abort does not have children.
This woman is a monster.
If you want to make your worst to let your child grow with insecurities about his natural tendencies, you might consider moving to Sweden and sending him to Egalia, the taxpayer-funded preschool recently opened in Sweden.
At Egalia, every effort will be made to let your little boy grow up as a homosexual, and your little girl as a lesbian. These attempts will – nature being what it is – mostly fail, but the indoctrination of young minds and their introduction to sexual perversion from the tenderest age will not fail to show some effect anyway; moreover, even when you can’t ruin a child you can still hope to leave him with some more or less permanent damage.
The motivation for such exercise (which takes place, let us remember, in one of the most de-Christianised Countries on Earth) is the assumption that little boys get an “unfair advantage”, and the way to deal with that is to…. try to transform as many little boys into little girls, and vice versa. This is pure feminazism: the combination of a perverted ideology with mass human experiment and relentless child indoctrination. Dr Goebbels would be proud.
Therefore, boys and girls are not allowed to refer to each other using “gender stereotyping” words, like, erm, “boy” or “girl”. They are, in fact, asked to forget what they are, lest this should help them to grow in a natural (and therefore: gender-stereotyping) way. In their gender-neutral world there are, therefore, only “friends”. Similarly, they will not be put in contact with diseducational, proto-Fascist, chauvinistic literature aimed at consolidating the male supremacy like, erm, “Cinderella” or “Snow White”. Instead, they’ll be put in contact with, say, a couple of male giraffes who are sad because they cannot have a son, until they adopt a crocodile.
My observations on this – controversial even in Sweden, which is something you didn’t think possible – human experiment are as follows:
1) I can’t avoid seeing in this not only an attack to sexual normality, but a direct attack to Christianity. This is the same as to say that Sweden must become as much like Sodom as early perversion of children allows. The fact is seen, of course, as positive.
2) It never ceases to amaze me how feminists always have the men’s world as the exclusive metre of “success”, and “advantage”. That boys can’t become mothers simply escapes them. That, therefore, girls have an awful lot of skills more or less directly related to this fundamental difference, whilst boys have an awful lot of skills more or less directly related to their own set of biological possibilities, is also blissfully ignored. In this way, being a woman is completely discounted, and the only metre of success is what a man can achieve. This is the thinking of a woman who would like to be a man, tries to compete with them, fails, and whines. Make no mistake, feminism has in itself the germs of lesbianism. Or tell me how many women past post-pubescence do you know who are authentically feminine, and authentically feminist.
3) This kind of experiment has already been tried in Germany, starting from the Sixties. In only one generation, this has made of Germany the country with the highest percentage of homosexuals and lesbians in Europe (this is now I saying it, but the German Education Ministry when announcing the change of policy). Fortunately, Germany still being (in part) a Christian country this has been recognised as a problem and last time I looked (2004) a complete reversal of policy had been announced, with the explicit intent of encouraging boys to be boys, and girls to be girls. I can’t avoid the suspicion that some people in Sweden are well aware of the result of the German human experiments – alas, this is a tradition over there; the idea that human being are changeable has survived Nazism, or rather has transformed itself in a kind of politically correct kind of Nazism – but other than the Germans, they desire their effects.
4) It is a very easy prediction that whilst these feminazis (of both sexes) will succeed in perverting a relatively small number of children, most children will grow up happily defying every attempt of gender engineering: the boys happily growing into more or less stereotypical men and the girls into more or less stereotypical women. Which is, by the way, what has happened in Germany. In thirty or forty years’ time, these old PC teachers, now already with one foot in that hell they don’t believe in, will look with dismay at the result of their experiments and have to admit that it’s not easy to fight against human nature.
Some of them will then, no doubt, start to demand the castration of vast numbers of men, in order to achieve gender equality.
Accompanied by the tale with the castrated male giraffe.