Guardian Moonbat Calls for “Cull” of Western Children

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Guardian Moonbat Calls for “Cull” of Western Children

Written By : Dave Blount

It has been hard for progressives to claim the moral high ground while shrieking that children’s lives should be snuffed out for the sake of convenience — excuse me, “choice.” But environmentalism once again provides the smokescreen of sanctimony that prevents the gullible from recognizing that the liberal agenda represents unadulterated evil. From Airstrip One’s The Guardian:

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government’s target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

All children are bad, but Western children are particularly bad, because according to the Gaiaist religion,

the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis. …one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.

As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.

If Nazism and communism could leave tens of millions dead, what will be the death toll if the evil freaks driving the environmentalism movement get the leverage to inflict their anti-Western and antihuman fantasies?

In the US, we already have a Science Czar who has advocated putting sterilants in the water supply. Why not use poison instead? After all, it may only be a matter of years before global warming inconveniences the polar bears unless the human race is reduced to a few barefoot peasants cowering before their socialist overlords.

Not that there is any evidence that CO2 causes measurable warming anyway.

Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

"the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit"

Well, then, the logical response is to note that plants love rich people!
Bildo

So I think he's advocating that we should exterminate 20 poor people for every "wealthy", productive, westerner born.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Posted by Bildo

2009-10-29 11:29:38

Well if libtard eco-nuts are so gung-ho for genocide, until they are the first to kick the bucket for the betterment of the world, they can kiss my white ass.
Realpolitik

Oh, Vas Eleen – your hyperbole is soooo twee. Move over Swift.
Realpolitik

they can kiss my white ass.

Posted by bthewolf

If they can catch up to ya.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Oh, Vas Eleen – your hyperbole is soooo twee. Move over Swift.

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 12:27:55

If they can catch up to ya.

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 12:28:56

You gotta point, never-show? Or are just being your usual retarded self?

Oh and for the record, what hyperbole is Van Helsing supposedly posting here today?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ Glibertarian

Typical Moonbat logic

Cull the people who provide the food and aid that keep Africans alive….that way there can be more Africans who need food and aid to be kept alive and less people to provide it.

Kind of like taxing the rich to give money to welfare queens, so that there are more welfare queens and and less rich to give money.
Realpolitik

what hyperbole is Van Helsing supposedly posting here today?

Posted by bthewolf

Because, tweedlebum, the article does not call of a cull of western children. Ya gotta learn to read.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 12:57:18

t is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

You were saying? And the ENTIRE article implies JUST THAT statement!!! So retard WHO NEEDS TO LEARN TO READ???

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children.

In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government's target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

If so, we need to start cutting back population now with methods that offer a humane choice – before it happens the hard way

Dear G_D, nevershow, are you completely illiterate?
Realpolitik

the ENTIRE article implies JUST THAT statement!!! So retard WHO NEEDS TO LEARN TO READ???

Posted by bthewolf

The article does not imply such, noshow2, you (in your usual ignorant fashion) infer.
Mike_M

The UK is a sick country. Losing the nerve to run an empire is one thing, cheerleading for national suicide is a sign of imminent demise. No wonder the teens and young adults don't work and spend their time drinking and doing drugs.

It won't be long before the government and social leadership there is so fatalistic and anti-human that rooting for the terrorists may be the more moral choice.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

The article does not imply such, noshow2, you (in your usual ignorant fashion) infer.

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 13:51:27

No the ignorance is yours NEVER-SHOW it clearly makes that case that in order to save the planet, the reduction of the number of Westerners must happen. The easiest method for doing this as stated is for the West to CULL children or those that will produce children.

If you're too stupid to see those FACTS as stated in the article, then you are and forever will be too stupid to live without your mommy.
Realpolitik

it clearly makes that case that in order to save the planet, the reduction of the number of Westerners must happen. The easiest method for doing this as stated is for the West to CULL children or those that will produce children.

If you're too stupid to see those FACTS as stated in the article, then you are and forever will be too stupid to live without your mommy.

Posted by bthewolf

The thing of it is, stained one, there is no mention of performing the deed of "culling" children. Having fewer children does not a cull make. What you say is "stated" is not "stated".
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

The thing of it is, stained one, there is no mention of performing the deed of "culling" children. Having fewer children does not a cull make. What you say is "stated" is not "stated".

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 14:52:03

Dumbass all of the talk of having children being the root issue and core argument of the article VERY CLEARLY implies that children are the locus of the culling. Your failure to see that in the clear text of this article, is laughable. You are in denial, you cannot accept FACTS.

cull (kl) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:

culled , cull·ing , culls

1. To pick out from others; select.

2. To gather; collect.

3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).

So if children aren't the ones being culled, here, who are?

Come on never-show, show us all your vaunted intellectual prowess. Please tell who is to be culled, based on the language of this article?
tblrk2006

This person put forth the hypothitical of a cull as it pertains to their goal of less CO2. Thats just as bad as calling for it. Its right on the tip of his tongue.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

This person put forth the hypothitical of a cull as it pertains to their goal of less CO2. Thats just as bad as calling for it. Its right on the tip of his tongue.

Posted by tblrk2006

2009-10-29 15:35:27

Exactly he implied it, but never-show can't read, or is trying to be literal to avoid the clear intent of the author.
whats_up

Exactly he implied it, but never-show can't read, or is trying to be literal to avoid the clear intent of the author.

Posted by bthewolf

2009-10-29 15:41:43

The author didnt imply anything, you infered that from your reading, not having very much luck today are you bthewolf, seriously YOU are the one with the problem.
jimb123

As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.

I've got one of the lucky babies from China (well she's 14 but still my baby) along with a son from Vietnam. She asked me when she was younger "dad, why do people want to kill babies like me? I like me.". This led to a long discussion of moral right and wrong.

What rp and wu don't seem to get is that calls to demonize people who have babies will eventually lead to what is currently happening in China (and India) where the government can limit family size and if you go beyond this then abortion or infanticide are called for. I challenge them to explain to my daughter why babies just like her are killed by some government decree.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

The author didnt imply anything, you infered that from your reading, not having very much luck today are you bthewolf, seriously YOU are the one with the problem.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-29 16:10:00

Well I'm beating you here and in the abortion thread so I'm not sure what you I'm think I'm losing.

And yes the author is implying culling children either through infanticide or just selective breeding laws like those in China, it's still culling(cull (kl) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:

culled , cull·ing , culls

1. To pick out from others; select.

2. To gather; collect.

3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example). ) the second definition and third are most appropriate. Under the authors proposals he feels that the West shildren must be rejected. That the population of the West must slow or stop. Cull does not automatically mean kill, WU, it just means to remove. By limiting the number of children you can have as a family you are culling them.

You and Vega need to spend more time with a dictionary and maybe another course in reading comprehension.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

The author didnt imply anything, you infered that from your reading, not having very much luck today are you bthewolf, seriously YOU are the one with the problem.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-29 16:10:00

Follow-up: So far I've handed Jack Auf, never-Show, you and Vega you collectives asses. Almost entirely by myself, So I'd say you're either delusional or just plain stupid.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Because, tweedlebum, the article does not call of a cull of western children.

From the article:

It is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

Ya gotta learn to read.

Indeed.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

The author didnt imply anything

You're exactly right. The author blatantly stated it. Thank you for that important correction.
Brock

I’m speechless . . .

Definitely not, children are our future, the greatest thing that I have done to date or will ever do is being a father, how someone can equate correctness to not having children, that’s just F-ed UP! Children are the last thing we as a society should ever think about limiting, it saddens me to tears to think about a world with out children.

We have choices of how we can prolong the earth and natural resources, but limiting family should be the last on our list, I would happily give my life in place of one of my children if need be, but don’t ever ask me to choose because my response will be to kill you.
Realpolitik

WOW!

So much is being explained about the usual suspects of RWN. THEY CAN'T READ! And thus they can't comprehend. They post a quote and then tell you it means something it does not. Not.even.close.

The article never once asks for a culling of children – nor of anyone. The article never once implies that a culling should take place.

Quote away, children – prove my point yet again. Thanks.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

THEY CAN'T READ!

Can't read what? Can't read the article that clearly and explicitly calls for the culling of Western children? No, I'd say we read that quite well, actually.

Quote away, children

Why? Didn't you read it the first time?

Then again, I guess the fact that I had to quote it for you in the first place pretty much proves you didn't read it.
Realpolitik

Can't read the article that clearly and explicitly calls for the culling of Western children? No, I'd say we read that quite well, actually.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-29 19:45:32

Well, tiny – yes. You can read that article until the cows come home for slaughter. However, that is not the article under discussion. We are talking about the article which is the subject of this blog.
Brock

I understand and this is still my retort, if you don't like it please feel free to move on.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Well, tiny – yes.

Good. Thank you for agreeing with me and conceding the argument.

You can read that article until the cows come home for slaughter.

Well, yes, I can read the article. But apparently you can't.

However, that is not the article under discussion.

Interesting. Apparently the subject of this blog posting is somehow not the article under discussion.
Realpolitik

Well, tiny – yes.

Good. Thank you for agreeing with me and conceding the argument.

Tiny, tiny – where have your mother and i gone so wrong. We sooooo hoped you would learn to comprehend. Sigh! Now – s.l.o.w.l.y – You can read the article that clearly and explicitly calls for the culling of Western children – but that is not the article under discussion in this thread, This article is from The Guardian.

You can read that article until the cows come home for slaughter.

Well, yes, I can read the article. But apparently you can't.

tiny – I'll read it if you supply it.

However, that is not the article under discussion.

Interesting. Apparently the subject of this blog posting is somehow not the article under discussion.

Is not *your* article under discussion. Is it now clear for you, or must we pay for that remedial reading course – again?

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-29 20:33:48
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 20:48:13

RETARD, The article in question, the one in the GAURDIAN calls for the culling of Americans and Australians, and implies all of Western Civilization. That's the topic of discussion, any other article you think is under discussion?
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Quote away, children – prove my point yet again. Thanks.

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-10-29 19:34:14

The only point you've poven is that you're a complete f'n moron, never-show.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Tiny, tiny – where have your mother and i gone so wrong.

Mm. I'm sure all the other third-graders found that oh so amusing.

You can read the article that clearly and explicitly calls for the culling of Western children – but that is not the article under discussion in this thread, This article is from The Guardian.

Yes, the Guardian article. Which explicitly calls for the culling of Western children. It's right there in the article. Maybe you should read it?

I'll read it if you supply it.

So in other words, you haven't read the article. Duly noted.

Is it now clear for you

Clear for me? I'm not even sure it's clear for you. You're so damned incoherent I don't even think you know what the Hell you're talking about.

Now slowly, s-l-o-w-l-y read what I'm about to tell you.

This blog posting concerns this article:

"Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet"

This article appears at this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/…

This link contains this quote:

By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

Do you get it now or do I need to break out the diagrams and hand-puppets?