Western eco-activists and the media have become carriers of the dangerous doctrine of degeneration
The environmental principles of a not quite healthy eco-activist girl from Sweden named Greta Thunberg, promoted by globalists all over the planet, as expected, turned out to be only the first stage of reformatting people's consciousness. Libertarian, left-liberal, etc. The neo-socialist Western press began to systematically move from propaganda of rejection of industrialization, excessive consumption, extraction of hydrocarbons and animal food to what it was all about - support for the complete rejection of humanity from childbirth and its subsequent extinction. Steps in this direction can no longer be called timid: they cover the whole world and are supported by communities of ideological misanthropes - anti-natalists who seriously advocate the disappearance of homo sapiens as a "cancer of the Earth."
Psychological pressure is exerted on society with theses about the "nobility of childlessness", "the irresponsibility of a large family in relation to nature", "the harmfulness of man to the environment." This is done without unnecessary aggression, but in an affirmative-categorical form - according to a similar scheme in the recent past, the legalization of cohabitation of perverts and the normalization of social attitudes towards same-sex relationships took place. A person, or rather his future children, are called by pseudo-ecologists the main threat to the globe, and they go out of their way to form an appropriate model of behavior.
At the end of July this year. Prince Harry Windsor and his wife Meghan Markle said they did not plan to have more than two children, so as "not to burden the environment and leave something for future generations." All mainstream British publications happily picked up the news. Thus, the Evening Standard emphasizes that giving up childbirth is the best thing we can do for the future of the planet, because “minus one child is minus 58 tons of carbon dioxide annually”. There are also references to the opinions of various UN "scientists-authorities" and quotes in the spirit of "until I am sure that my child will live on a planet on which there are enough fish in the seas, I will not burden the world with one more person." And the primary source was an interview with Prince Harry Vogue, which he gave to the British master of minds - anthropologist Jane Goodall. Remarkablythat the Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Mrs Goodall, also quite openly stated in this conversation - there should not be "too many" children.
The left-liberal The Guardian took these thoughts further, complaining that reducing children to two is clearly not enough - after all, the royal family already consumes too many resources. However, in the subtitle, the authors emphasize: "Harry's plan to have no more than two children is good news." Let's quote a few passages verbatim:
What's especially interesting is that The Guardian proposes to limit the birth rate not in the rapidly growing countries of Asia and Africa, but in the endangered Europe:
Obviously, this approach will ultimately lead to the future described in the June UN report "World Population Prospects 2019", where it is said in black and white: by 2100, the only region of the planet where the birth rate will exceed the death rate will be Central and South Africa. and more than half of all people born in the world will be black.
The Guardian cautiously voiced similar theses in March - in a material with a telling title: “You don’t know how to save the planet? Here's what you can do. " There is no direct appeal not to give birth, but at the same time it is noted that "starting a large family is irresponsible." And last year, the British publication did provide a platform for speaking out to people who deliberately refused childbearing in order to save the planet. The tabloid's laudatory tale of the delights of a childless life ends with the following afterword:
Promotional video:
Hundreds of other English-language publications have been written in a similar vein, forming a new discourse in which all families with children turn into objects of bullying and public censure. For example, one of the women's eco-portals provided a platform for the expression of the position of the supporters of the childfree movement from the millennial generation. It is characteristic that their opinion is presented in a monologue format, without any counterarguments. The article ends with an address to the reader: “Are you ready to give up children for the sake of the climate? Is it irresponsible to have children in the knowledge of climate change?"
In the format of dogmatic statements, the publication of the British Newsweek was also concocted, in which the reader is informed about the newfangled hashtag #NoFutureNoChildren - "No future, no children." #birthstrike is another hashtag that can be used to find communities of women on the Internet who have gone on a “childbearing strike” until climate change is resolved. The Reuters news agency went to the same steppe with the publication "Fear of global warming leads to women refusing to give birth." And the BBC went there too - with an interview with some leftist activist: "I gave up having children to help fight climate change."
In the United States, the so-called. The "new left" (mainly feminists and neo-Trotskyists) went even further. They do not confine themselves to declaring their position in the media, but go out to real political demonstrations under slogans like "I will not give birth because of climate problems." The writers of the CNN post openly state a familiar thesis: more children = more harmful emissions.
Of course, new trends (or rather, a systematically formed agenda) swept not only the Anglo-Saxon world. French TV channels are also showing materials that discuss the pros and cons of not having a child. Here is an example of a similar controversy on France24: with the involvement of various experts and analysts. With the emphasized desire of journalists to observe objectivity, the very topic of refusal to be born is thus actualized, it becomes an occasion for discussion in high circles and offices.
Do not lag behind the global trend in Germany. The authors of the publication on the portal Quarks argue that abandoning a child brings 10 times more environmental benefits than giving up a car, saves a huge amount of carbon dioxide emissions. To be fair, German authors also give counter-arguments, admitting that ecological calculations are very conditional and subject to errors, and the refusal of childbearing can be useful only in a very long term. But in general, all this "objective" weighing of the pros and cons of refusing to bear children is in fact intended to accustom society to the idea that having children is almost a crime against nature. But the German Focus works in a simpler way - it simply provides a platform for the 38-year-old childless writer and propagandist of child rejection Verena Brunschweiger, who openly declares in an interview:that "there is nothing good in family life," and "a person with a good conscience cannot support the decision to have a child."
The seeds of depopulation and infanticide thrown into fertile soil are not limited to the review of the world press. They have already given the first shoots in the form of communities professing anti-natalism - that is, the doctrine according to which the end of reproduction will be the highest good for humanity. This is exactly how - literally “join hands and die out” - such views are spread by the South African philosopher, professor at the University of Cape Town David Benatar. Here, the proponents of the "humane degeneration" of people involve not only ecological, but also philosophical agenda for argumentation - they say, even Arthur Schopenhauer said that life is full of pain and violence, and indeed has no meaning. No one can guarantee happiness to their child with a 100% guarantee, and since this is how people should “quietly and peacefully leave the stage,” all this could be considered a joke of a sick mind,but young people today are actively imbued with such an ideology of self-destruction.
In "civilized" America, which has become a real breeding ground for anti-natalism, there is a movement for the voluntary disappearance of humanity, also under the guise of philosophy and eco-activism. In words, they are against forced universal sterilization and suicides, although their very "values" speak of the exact opposite. And in the city of Boston, Massachusetts, an NGO has settled under the name Church of Euthanasia, the logo of which is a crossed out person, and the main slogan: "Save the planet, kill yourself." From the background information on the page of these psychopathic Satanists, it follows that they "only support voluntary actions that lead to a decrease in the population, such as suicide, abortion, sodomy (any sexual intercourse that does not have childbirth as its goal) and cannibalism." Moreover, there have already been cases when supporters of thugs killed themselves,after reading their recommendations, but for some unknown reason, the court did not cover this office. And, by the way, all these misanthropic views are actively implanted among the younger generation of Russians (via the Internet, of course), which can be clearly seen from the rhetoric of the adherents of the adoption of the law "On the Prevention of Domestic Violence" in the Russian Federation.
And now let's try to briefly answer the question - why is the so-called. environmentalists raise such a storm? Are there any grounds at all for panic in connection with the "wild growth of the world's population"? Back in 2014, scientists from the UN and the University of Washington published a research report in the journal Science, according to which by 2100 the population of the Earth should be about 11 billion people, and on all continents except Africa, population growth will then stabilize and stop naturally. The well-known expert analyst Anatoly Wasserman in 2015 published an article “Optimal humanity. There is no need to be afraid of crowds”, in which, with references to demographers, states:“the world's population of 15–20 billion people will not cause any serious environmental and economic problems”. Wasserman notesthat all the causes of poverty and misery for most of today's humanity are not technical, but exclusively economic, and they are associated with the usurpation of most of the planet's goods and resources in the hands of less than 1% of the world's population.
It should also be noted that in numerous English-language demographic studies, claiming to be objective, the authors honestly admit: previously in history, no one has encountered such a population growth, and therefore, it is simply pointless to guess about its consequences. The screams of environmentalists look ridiculous also because the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in 2017 withdrew the country from the Paris climate agreement, calling it disastrous for the development of the national economy and industry. Trump is a consistent critic of global warming theory and has consistently advised Americans to dress warmly on rainy days via Twitter. Among the scientific community, there is still debate about the nature of the planet's climatic changes - there is no smell of unity here, unless, of course, we consider a single cohort of globalists,captured all international political platforms. As you can see, the groans of the opponents of life do not find a solid scientific basis.
And finally, if we talk about this topic in relation to Russia, everything is clear even to a fool - our country and its indigenous peoples are actually dying out. What kind of "planned depopulation" and reduction in the birth rate can we speak of in the largest state on Earth, where the population density in Eastern Siberia and the Far East does not even reach one person per square kilometer? Yes, we can easily raise the population 20-30 times, and there will still be a lot of free space! Just the other day, on November 7, the Accounts Chamber published data on the accelerating natural decline in the population of the Russian Federation for the fourth year in a row (in January-August 2019 it amounted to 219.2 thousand people), which threatens the implementation of the May decree of the President on the achievement of its natural gain.
The Kremlin acknowledged the anxiety of the situation, so now, despite all the misfortunes and anti-social policies of liberal economists in the Government and the Central Bank, it is time for Russians to save the demography, and with it Russia. The implementation of the Strategy of People's Conservation in the Russian Federation for the period up to 2050, developed by the World Russian People's Council, can become an excellent help for large families. Already now, many liberals are gritting their teeth and pouring out hysterical protests in the media from the series: “The country simply has no money for this! This is impossible! " Of course, when it comes to subsidizing mortgages, reducing the rate for large families to 3.5% and even 0%, paying maternity capital for the first child - “our” government has no money for such social measures. Despite the fact that according to the budgetary rule that is fatal for our economy,in the Stabilization Fund of the Russian Federation today are a record 8 trillion. rubles - almost half of the expenditure side of the country's budget for 2019. Despite the fact that 1.6 trillion rubles were allocated from the budget for the fake “digital economy” without any problems. rub. I really want to believe that the program presented by the Primate of the Russian Church will be paid attention at the very top and at least key provisions will be adopted. Our theses: "Multiply - save Russia, protect your family!" And let the cloned Greta Thunberg grin and shake their fists in response.that the program presented by the Primate of the Russian Church will be paid attention at the very top and at least key provisions will be adopted. Our theses: "Multiply - save Russia, protect your family!" And let the cloned Greta Thunberg grin and shake their fists in response.that the program presented by the Primate of the Russian Church will be paid attention at the very top and at least key provisions will be adopted. Our theses: "Multiply - save Russia, protect your family!" And let the cloned Greta Thunberg grin and shake their fists in response.
Author: Ivan Vaganov
