Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CaptainKirk 11 months ago
    Lets be honest.
    If the left was CONCERNED about CO2,
    why are they FOR people coming from Hunduras, where they have a TINY CO2 Foot print, so they can COME HERE...

    It can't be for their chidlren, since we only have 12 years left!

    It certainly AINT good for the CO2 footprint to add MILLIONS of people to a first world country where their footprint expands enormously!

    Oh, but these are NOT PRINCIPLES for the left. They are WEAPONS to beat people down with!

    It's all a search for POWER and CONTROL over the living... Making people wish they were dead.
    Otherwise called Communism!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 months, 4 weeks ago
      The plan to implement Technocracy includes socialism then communism to be finally replaced by Technocracy.
      In its most extreme sense technocracy is an entire government running as a technical or engineering problem and is mostly hypothetical. In more practical use, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy that is run by technologists. When you hear sustainability you are often hearing a subjective hypothesis. One The is Brought to you by the State Science institute.
      The Ecology movement was born from Technocracy brought to the world by Maurice Strong with Rockefeller’s aid.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rainman0720 11 months ago
    Mirriam-Webster defines industrial as "characterized by highly developed industries. And it defines ecology as "a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments".

    The publication quoted in the linked article is (and I'm not kidding) "The Journal of Industrial Ecology."

    Akston and Galt and all the others clearly state that contradictions cannot exist, but that publication sure feels like one to me. I've checked my premises, and if I've made an error, I don't see it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 11 months ago
    What they're really saying here is the European peoples (not the most populous race) have figured out how to get more production out of less acreage and therefore are using less planet surface per capita in order to live a better life. What the article doesn't address is modern efficient agriculture used by said race not only produces more yield per acre, but the CO2 to Oxygen conversion of those crops is enormous. Can't find it now, but I've seen satellite images proving that during the North American crop cycle the CO2 to Oxygen conversion is greater than the Amazon rain forest and African jungles combined. Of course it takes more energy to live a better life, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

    I use a certain amount of energy to maintain a nice lawn and trees and bushes around my house, but when you figure the CO2 conversion a healthy lawn and landscape are capable of, then the CO2 footprint of my wife and I is virtually zero or even a bit positive on the Oxygen and clean air side. I think I'll toss a steak on the BBQ tonight!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 10 months, 4 weeks ago
    Before white (or other) people started eating this way, a lot more (%-wise) of the world's population was starving to death. I am not about to listen to the notion that we should starve for the sake of worrying about "climate change".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee 10 months, 4 weeks ago
    Most of the contents of the original article are laughable. But is doesn't get really funny until the end.
    Copied under 'Fair Use' clauses of copyright law:

    The authors want to thank the peer reviewers for improving this paper. Also, the authors would like to thank Dr. Dana Boyer at the University of Minnesota for her insights on FEW nexus research.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 11 months ago
    I think plastic is doing a lot of the damage. I am puzzled. My local HEB Grocery store just raised the price on a plastic container of Rice from $5.95 to $7.95! The amount of a box of this same rice containing the amount of rice in the plastic container, costs $3.98! Why are they charging $4 more for the plastic container?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 11 months ago
      Other than being unsightly to man, I suspect that most plastic tossed into the environment has no more impact than a rock. Of course, if you go to some places the people don't seem to mind plastic stuff lying all about like a bunch of rocks.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 11 months ago
    Don’t think this is just a random attack against whites. The plan is ultimately the get to a point where the Georgia guide stones message is the NWO “.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”, and “Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity”. If we were to apply these now, we’d have to kill over 90% of the planet.” Pitting Races against each other is an easy manipulation for the satanic deletes . Twist pervert and distort reality is all they are capable of.
    Technocracy the ‘bible of sustainability “
    Rations for the peons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ exceller 10 months, 4 weeks ago
    "Potatoes, beef, apples and milk are some of the worst offenders."

    Oh really? Are we supposed to eat grass? Or bananas that grow on trees and don't need watering?

    What is next? We will be blamed for breathing more air than Latinos or blacks.


    Unlimited capacity for hatred - that is what the left is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 months, 4 weeks ago
      They want us divided. BLM was not a grass roots movement. It was contrived to create racial angst . Like Spike Lee and Oprah talk about how oppressed they are in America yet they life like kings and queens.
      MLK used as a revered lightning rod and as a rallying tool , yet his statement “Judge a man not on the color of his skin but on the content of his character” That statement is ignored.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 10 months, 2 weeks ago
    This is an eons-old contest between two notions of how the world's resources (though effectively all are renewable except the sun itself) should be used: (1) There are a huge number of souls waiting to be born, so we should breed like flies and live poorly in order that as many should live as possible; or (2) The purpose of civilization and of intelligence is to make life comfortable, so any conservation needed should be accomplished by individuals being responsible enough not to have kids they can't afford to make rich.

    I'm squarely on side (2) because I've found zero evidence to support view (1).

    View (1), and the related view that theft should be tolerated, completely explain why Africa and south Asia are poor. I hope that colonialism becomes cheap enough again for those cultures to be wiped out and replaced, so that nobody has to live poor unless he himself earns it by screwing up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo