agenda 21

All posts tagged agenda 21

This will be my final word on this subject—I really, really, really hope.

I hate this subject, I hate how deeply I got into years ago, and I hate what it did to me. I mostly hate that I was manipulated due to my experiences to “take a side.” Once more, I was duped and thought I was fighting against something, when in fact I was pushing forward an agenda by those who designed it—once more, I was a useful idiot.

(I was steered into the emotional, reactionary direction of blaming women for the feminist movement, and I believed to a large extent that feminists were acting alone, that they were not a tool being used by even more disturbed control-freaks. I was wrong. I more time went on, the more it dawned on me that feminists did not invent this Marxist program. I think it all dates from the 1700s. Anyway. Women are not my enemy—they’re suckers too, same as me, and us—feminists are not even my enemy, not exactly; my enemy is anyone trying to limit or restrict my natural born, God-given (inherent) freedom…freedom to live the way nature intended Man to live, intended men (and women) to live; as well as freedom from oppression, religious indoctrination, corporate agendas, and money itself. Freedom to live naturally and freedom from the evil control tactics of civilization.

Natural, true freedom is about the “to” (do things) as well as the “from” (things). Understand? There’s a verb and a noun here in action regarding freedom. Anyone who forces others, or convinces others, to deny us our freedoms is our enemy.)

But I don’t stay fooled for long.

There have been times (and you can look at these in my archives) where I jumped on something and accepted it before I really checked it out or really thought about it. Why would I do that? Why would anyone…well, let’s see. When you feel isolated, a “minority of one,” and it appears that 99.99% of everyone around you seems completely oblivious to what you know…shit, you feel such relief that (a) you’re not insane and (b) you’re not alone.

If you’ve read Nineteen-Eighty-Four, you’ve seen this happen to “Winston Smith.” He feels so alone in his doubts and questions amid his emerging awareness that he reaches out to the first person who might provide not only answers but also a means to help somehow—he’s invited to join the crusade against tyranny.

Obviously, it was all deception; “O’Brien” was not recruiting him but setting him up; he had even written the gawdamn book that he gave “Winston” to read (regarding the oligarchs, their history and plans).

Anyway, that happened to me. That’s why you have never heard me mention the name of “Warren Farrell” over the last few years—because I eventually deconstructed what he was about and felt I had to distance myself from him as soon as possible. Sure, he might have had good intentions, but I began to suspect that he never truly left the feminist agenda (the Marxist agenda—both which are just different masks of the actual agenda—different gloves, the same old fist of tyranny), at least in theory.

Why? Because although he seems pro-male, he is ultimately anti-masculine (and anti-nature). In the end, he wants what the feminists want: “Gender Transition.” (His own words.) What the fuck does this mean? It means that men should be more like women. Period. More social engineering. More evil bullshit wearing a psychological costume.

(Don’t believe me? Here: “gender” = “sex; male or female;” and “transition” = “movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another.” Make up your own mind.)

I don’t know. Maybe he is, or maybe he doesn’t understand what we’re supposed to be, anyway.

Still, I will not be party to crimes against nature or humanity.

I offer this now in an effort to close this issue in my mind and clarify everything I’ve gone through, studied, researched, thought about, and wrote about for the last decade (I started this back in 1999 in fact—“this” meaning the breaking free of my Marxist-feminist mindscape, trying to understand and free myself out of the hatred I had had for myself—and for my brothers—and trying to figure out where it came from, who was behind it, and why…in other words, I wanted the damn truth).

I also want to pre-empt the attitude that I sense will used to attack me (because it already has—and by “attack” I mean philosophically) later…

 “OMFG this guy flip-flops all over his blog he doesnt know what hes talking about or wot he beliefs!!!!!”

Well, yeah. How else does one arrive at the truth except through a process of believing something, getting into it, understanding it, then later challenging it, questioning it, discovering the truth or fiction of it? I’m talking about doing this with an open mind, with no bias or bigotry.

Yes, I have changed my mind. It has always been my nature to latch onto something and then eventually, sooner or later, question the hell out of it. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind once you realize that your beliefs are based on lies.

Those who do not value the truth, well, they tend to question nothing that would shake the foundations of their delusions.

So, enough of that. That’s as far as I may be perceived as “defending myself.” So, now you may begin your assault—no worries, I can take it. I’ve crucified myself so many times that nothing anyone can do to me would be worse than that. Bring it on.

What is the Gender Agenda?

It is a eugenics program and a social (engineering) program that has been going on for at least one hundred years. It is in fact far older. This is just the latest version. These are the different aspects of it that I know about:

1. Destroy masculinity (feminize the males).

2. Set men against women (division through feminist propaganda, institutions, using the media, police and courts).

3. Set children against their parents.

4. Destroy the family unit.

5. Devalue and degrade humanity itself.

6. Encourage homosexuality and normalize it.

7. Androgyny (sexual ambiguity and the reversal of gender).

8. Sterilization.

I’m not convinced about these so-called “chem-trails,” so I’m not commenting on that. And I have to forgive their plug for their product, because I’d actually like to try it. I don’t mind plugging something that will help people under a premise of education and, well, telling us the truth. And this is the truth.

1. Destroy Masculinity

I’ve covered this for years, thought and researched and studied, and have written about this for years. So I won’t get into all that again.

Bottom line, it’s a real plan and it’s been going on for a long while. It is carried out in two ways:

A. Psychologically feminize the males (have them raised by women).

B. Physically feminize the males (reduce testosterone and increase estrogen, through various means).

Why destroy masculinity?

The same reason you’d knock down a wall—to remove all defense—to get at those more vulnerable.

To get rid the “real man.” The masculine man. Which is a man who will fight to defend his home and his tribe from an enemy or threat. In the future (for a while) only two types of men will be required: the techies and the warriors. The warriors will be replaced by machines; they already are. As soon as they have an artificially intelligent computer that can create and program other artificially intelligent computers, the techie males will be phased out as well. All that will be left, I suspect, will be a small group for breeding stock and for experiments. Sperm banks and lab rats.

To get rid of the “creative man”—a man who is adaptable, resourceful, sharp and alert, and strong and brave. This is an attempt to render males into left-brained beings, rather than their natural right-brained normal state. And this has been going on as far back as ancient Egypt. It has not really worked, however. The irrepressible nature of the male spirit has never been squashed, eclipsed, or destroyed. The harder you hit us and the more you torture us, the wiser we become and the more ingenious.

However, the former has worked.

2. Men vs. Women

This was the primary function of the feminist movement. Division.

Gloria Steinem—

Show »

Oh yeh. Like the shirt, and the little illuminati pyramid, too, you evil fuck.

—was funded by the CIA to undermine, among other things, the “Hippy Movement” of the 1960s.

I’ve talked to death about this subject, so nothing more is needed to say except it is working brilliantly. Any man and woman who can stand each other for more than a few years is a rare case and is becoming an exception to the rule—“dating” is the new normal. Sport fucking. Or just using someone until you’re bored with them and then finding someone else to fuck for a while.

3. Children vs. Parents

Public education was the first step. This allows the State to raise (train) the child.

Show »

All the laws in place now supposedly to protect “the rights of the child” were set up to divide children from their parents. First divide them in terms of ideas and ethics, even values, and second to divide them physically (ultimately to destroy the concept of the parent); remove them from the home.

One result is that children can now hold their parents hostage—children are taught the law where it applies to “children’s rights” and so they can merely make something up to have Dad thrown in jail. Coupled with the feminist demonization of men, no one is going to believe him now when he claims he is innocent.

This goes for Mom, too. She’s next. Mark my words. Over 50% of kids grow up without dads already, and that will increase along with children being raised by the State, through foster care programs and institutions (including prisons and mental health institutions).

This is evident in such works as Brave New World. And, for the record, Aldous Huxley was a fucking shill, like his brother, Julian; he was not warning us, he was not making predictions. He was a member of this elite Fabian Socialist group, which often recruited and hired writers (George Orwell—aka Eric Arthur Blair—believed in the nightmare world he wrote about in Nineteen-Eighty-Four), artists, and later film makers (see H. G. Wells, writer and film maker; author of The New World Order; his film, Things to Come, based on his book, The Shape of Things to Come, again, isn’t a prediction).

About Things to Come—a main character is named “Oswald Cabal,” and “cabal” is a word that means: “a small group of people who work together secretly.” The word actually comes from the Late Hebrew word, Qabbalah, or Kabbalah. But that’s another story…

Point is, the super rich have employed these people to get this future system into the consciousness of society; acclimatization, incrementally. Ray Kurzweil is another modern example, especially more on the technology aspect (the technology that you, peasant, will never have).

More on the Fabian Socialist agenda.

The object of this third aspect is to get the children loyal and obedient only to the State. They will trust no other figure. The State will be their parent.

4. Destroy The Family

Marxism (which was funded and supported and in fact created by the same types who developed Fabian Socialism) had had this goal for a long time…

From The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (who was Marx’s NWO handler and the true brain behind it all) in 1848…

Goals, “Communist Manifesto”

Abolition of the family! (page 87)

Goals of Communism (page 94)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

Note: the above pages reflect the paperback version, 14th printing, April 1976
Note: the above quotes also reflect the tenets of the religion of humanism.

These are now United Nations goals under Agenda 21.

The basic unit of humanity, of a tribe in any region in any time in history, is the family. Maw, Paw, and kid. I’m actually not 100% certain about the precise details regarding why they hate this so much—I understand why rulers and oligarchs have often sought to wipe it out (it just makes their ambitions easier). But the fact that they hate the family seems really odd to me. I dunno.

Anyway, they were the ones who brought the family and society to its current level of decay…so of course they’re going to offer solutions as to how to fix it all.

Again, this is another thing that has never been fully stomped out. Even in Brave New World, when these drugged-out children in the perfect technocratic society come across some more natural humans, and start to learn about parents and what a family used to mean, they begin getting ideas.

I think the ultimate goal is to wipe out not only the family globally, but also to wipe out its history—and make it equal to a hate crime to even consider thinking about it.

5. Devalue & Degrade Humanity

They won here.

Mission accomplished. Misanthropes abound today—the “humans r bad” crowd is growing like fucking wild-fire.

Oh, I know. Guess how I know…

Yeah. Boy, do I feel like a fucktard for helping this agenda along in my own pathetic, sloppy little way.

Anyway, I don’t consider myself anti-human anymore. (I never really, technically did—I was always anti-modern-human. If you doubt me, do some searches on this blog, it’s all still there somewhere. I have always been pro-natural-human.) I’m not really pro-modern-human now, either, though. I’m basically neutral.

I prefer natural humans, I guess, still, and that’s all.

But who cares what I think…and I don’t know how we can get back our self-respect and dignity without becoming arrogant cocksuckers again…

Why this was done was to eventually have humans embrace their own destruction.

6. Encourage Homosexuality & Normalize It

Well, yeah. They won here, too. This should be 5a rather than 6, but oh well.

Being gay used to be a mental illness, but it turned out to be a case of hormonal caprice. This is to say that it just happens, and it’s not good or bad.

“Was it part of the plan?”

Hmm? What plan?

Well. Let’s see. If you know that stressed out mothers develop hormone disruptions as a result, then start sending planes somewhere (say, over the Channel into Germany) and bombing the fuck out of the general population, day and night…. Yeah, I guess that would stress the hell out of the mothers in that city. It’s known that this is why there were be a lot more homosexuals born of those mothers.

“Have a coddled class of women in a fairly rich country, and then start dropping bombs on them in order to traumatize them—that was the plan?”

—and then study the results? I dunno. Maybe it was all incidental—some people like to take advantage of any situation to gain knowledge. I mean, of course Churchill wouldn’t have provoked Hitler into bombong London (as opposed to bombing strategic targets, like the RAF airstrips), would he? Damn, he’d never wanna do that…


Exactly. Who the fuck knows.

biological embedding of extreme stress. Strong …. mothers or mother substitutes, but that it was quite a different matter … London blitz noted the traumatizing effects of ….. search on the corticotropin-releasing hormone

On child development.

toms of mental illness, acute stress reaction due to mental stress from ….. of the London Blitz, who were rescued from collapsed …… hormonal mediators of the sympathetic or HPA axis directly …… Our questionnaire survey targeted mothers of

But there some truth in there


Okay, okay. So, it doesn’t matter what it is, if it’s normal or good or bad, really.

“Well, some people—”

Yes, some people really dislike gays, some wish them harm. But if all the gays moved to Hawaii, and there were no non-gays there, in a hundred years Hawaii would be an uninhabited island…

“Hmmm. right. They like their own sex and so do not breed.”

What matters is why it’s part of this agenda…

7. Androgyny

Sexual ambiguity and the reversal of gender.

We’ve been progressively sold this idea in various forms for a while now. Why anyone would think this is a positive thing is beyond my understanding.

I don’t really know what to write about on this subject—it would be like explaining why is it not good to dart into traffic in a downtown city at noon, or drink bleach, or pound spikes through your own eyeballs. I mean, what am I supposed to say about something so insane, absurd, and suicidal?

If I have to explain why men should be men and women should be women, I dunno…

We are not clams. We are not slugs. At worst, we’re monkeys. Although it might make a funny skit for a future sit-com, when we want to produce offspring, we don’t fuck ourselves to do it.

Whatever you believe—or don’t believe—what other species would divide itself into two sexes and then come back into one gender?

We are the way we are, with two sexes, because our biology works best this way in a natural environment. Like all other mammals.

One might say “God intended it that way.” Or “Father Nature used the force to make it that way.” Or “Nature made it that way.” Or, “Why would we need to adapt that way?” If one half of our gender disappeared suddenly—that’s when we would need asexual types. And that’s when we’d be forced to adapt.

But so long as we keep men men and women women, we don’t need to go that route. We are not in danger of losing half our gender, right?

Right. So, what the fuck?

Without a natural cause, like that, it wouldn’t be evolution—it would be engineering.

“Why fix what ain’t broken?”

Yeah. It might be ill, but it ain’t broken.

Moving on…

8. Sterilization

Fertility rates have been steadily decreasing for years—just do a quick search, like this, and you can see all sorts of graphs, from all kinds of sources, for nations all over the world.

From: Go forth and multiply a lot less

Coupled with rising mortality rates, this paints a grim picture for humanity over the next 25 years.

Now, no one is ever going to accuse me of being a fan of the “Go Forth And Multiply” strategy. I mean, sure, you could tell an ancient people that, but why would you need to?

Unless a disaster, like a major flood, just happened, and there were not many people left.

It is the nature of all life to breed and continue the species.

What’s the difference?

The difference is that natural life has checks and balances in place to prevent things from getting out of hand. What are these?

i. Predation. The only true predators humanity has right now (and has had since the dawn of agriculture) is itself—or, more accurately, the will of the ruling order. Aside from this there have been the odd serial killer, whose murderous deeds are but a grain of sand on a beach compared to the ruling order. Through out-right murder, war, programs of starvation and then bald-faced genocide, emperors and kings and queens have become the predators of their subjects, all the while the ruling order has not had such predation itself, except from its own kind, periodically.

With herd animals, it is the natural predators which largely determine the overall size of the herd. Where predators are low in number or absent, the herd’s ranks swell, and massive disease always follows.

ii. Disease. Nature’s way of saying, “There are too many of you.” This happens in the oceans, too, and this happens in forests—when forests get overcrowded and disease breaks out, the best thing that can happen is a vast purging fire.

iii. Acts of God. Yeah, natural disasters. This includes “the elements,” and what I mean by that is just the environment and the weather.

The difference is that humanity has no natural predators, we have an establishment that fights diseases, and we have become wise enough to avoid the mass carnage that occurs when disaster strikes.

Another difference is that the ruling order’s acts of mass murder are fairly indiscriminate—they do not “prune the tree” very well. In the natural world, predators take down the sick, weak, slow, and young. Essentially, they help strengthen the herd overall. The ruling order has never done this (except for perhaps the National Socialists in Germany, 1930s to 1945), and is not doing this now. The inbred twats are into eugenics, a pseudo-science.

(And those who founded and supported this agenda don’t mind talking about it. Because it serves another of their agendas—racial division. Like the vid directly above, it helps “non-whites” blame “the white man,” whatever that is, for all their problems. You cannot blame an entire race or subspecies for the actions and plans of a few.)

I’m not a fan of any control tactic, and that includes sterilization, abortion and birth control. I’d rather see humans dealing with predators again; I’d rather see natural ways of keeping the human blob in good fit condition. And I’d rather see some discipline, as well; it does not take much to avoid sexual intercourse, if one is not being constantly bombarded with sexual imagery.

Far better than this organized, methodical, scientific slow death that has been imposed not on all of us but just imposed on the “peasant” population. Remember, the ruling order and their minion class are not going through what we are. They are exempt from this soft kill program.

But all this is just me, I guess. My own personal opinion, please ignore.


What is the agenda of gender? Who’s behind it? What’s it all about? Why can’t we all be left the fuck alone?

I dunno.

If it is an agenda, then it is only another agenda of experimentation, which is always deployed to effect control infrastructure. Which is the only endgame of power. The endgame of malice is to enjoy the suffering before enjoying absolute power.

If it isn’t one agenda (or part of a great work), and just a series of coincidental agendas, the what?

I dunno. Skip to the bottom line.

“Wealth? The sick cackling laughter of psychopaths? What? Power?”

All that is power. Wealth is a means; knowledge is a means; control is the goal, giggling ego-maniacally all the way.

What is this agenda? The same as every other agenda—control.


This is all my own personal opinion, please deny all the above.

Further reading…

The History of Sterilization Abuse in the United States

Gender-Bender drugs turning boys into girls

Bisphenol A and Child Obesity

Gender-bent fish found downstream of pharmaceutical plants

Gender-bending chemicals put baby boys at risk of cancer and infertility

Chemicals Like Estrogen In Rivers Are Impacting Reproduction

Parliament committee fails to rein in river pollution

‘Gender-Bending’ Chemicals Found in Toys in China

Why Boys Are Turning Into Girls

Little kids given gender-bending treatments

Gender-bending Compounds Cause Breast Cancer, Asthma, Infertility

Nobody likes trees more than I do; nobody likes forests more than I do. And we’d be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoys the natural world more than I do. To be able to live in a forest has consumed my thoughts since I was 11 or 12 years old. To be able to live in a rainforest, with old growth trees being my front yard and back yard, would be the coolest fucking thing ever.

The forest has always felt like home to me. I have not noticed this attitude, this level of respect and reverence, in many people. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who wants to actually LIVE in a wild forest. I’ve spent time in the wilderness with people who liked camping, people who worked in the outdoors, and people who enjoy a stroll through a park with trees (hardly a wild forest, but whichever, it’s something, I guess). I’ve never met someone who likes forests as much as I do.

One might think that would make me an automatic “environmentalist,” but it doesn’t. Environmentalists do not live in forests. They may live in the country and have trees here and there, but this is not a wild landscape with trees as far as the eye can see, a landscape devoid of roads and powerlines and full of wildlife.

Frankly, Environmentalists have always seemed rather weird and scary to me. On the surface I seemed to have a lot in common with them—we both are against deforestion, pollution, and to some extent civilized development. I can certainly agree with any Greenpeace initiative that challenges large corporations hell-bent on stripping nature, obliterating it, and turning a profit from it.

Talk to some of them and they seem nearly religious about it all. I think that if you take a Nazi and a Hippy and fused them somehow, you’d get an Environmentalist. I’m sure most of them have good intentions, but some of them still seem a wee bit creepy…in the way a zealot, a follower of a cult, with strange rituals, might seem creepy.

Anyway, there is an important difference between the Environmentalist and someone like me:

My vision of an ideal human situation has us essentially back in the Stone Age, with some Iron Age trimming. Nomads, in teepees, following herds and hunting, fishing, and gathering.


Yeah. Obviously, that’s not going to happen—not unless some cataclysm utterly devastates the world and every civilized place is fucking demolished and wiped out, leaving semi-traditional Native peoples hanging on. And they decide to go back to the old ways.

Is this the world Environmentalists want? Is this what “sustainability” is all about? Is this how Environmentalists want to live?

Hell, no.

What they want is closer to what is depicted in the movie, Logan’s Run. An utterly organized, ordered, and control-freak civilization in a bubble, with sissified populations unable to leave and brainwashed into a system in which you can only live to age thirty. That’s your life span. When you hit 30 you go into a circus and get killed, while people cheer.

I want to live in Nature; the Environmentalist lives in a city or town and wants to control or manage Nature, and control all those who enter it or do not enter it. I don’t really want to control anyone. The Environmentalist calls the wild (or the entire planet, for some reason) “Mother Nature,” or “Mother Earth.”

I call the earth “the earth.” Sometimes I call the wilds, “Father Nature,” but that’s only a futile effort to bring balance back, to show that Nature has masculine and feminine parts (and quite frankly there is a lot more masculine about a forest than feminine. Tribes in the Amazon call the oldest, biggest trees “Grandfather” trees. Nature was considered masculine up until the Europeans (the Greeks, mainly) started reversing and switching everything around and upside down. Now everything is called “she”—boats, cars, cities, towns, countries, the planet, the plants and animals on the planet, mountains, storms, the moon, the oceans, the weather. Why? There seems to be an underlying consciousness determined to have everything regarded as female…why? I never understood the obsessive control-freak urge to slice and divide everything into genders; however, I do understand the source of this fanatical effort to feminize everything.

Seems like in fifty years or so, men will be called “she” also. And there will be no such thing as “masculine” or “gender;” everything and everyone will simply be regarded as feminine.

I hope I’m dead by then. Because I do not want to live in such a world.

And it seems that people really don’t think or care about this whatsoever. They just regurgitate what they’re told without giving it a second’s thought.

Anyway, more on that shit another time.)


I see the Environmentalist and its apparent opposite—the greedy, exploiting, soulless fuck in a business suit drooling over a new discovery of resources to plunder and grow richer from—as essentially the same. They both want to control wild regions—they may despise each other, but they’re both control freaks.

Conservation is about control, management, order. Environmentalism and “sustainability” are just another Marxist-based Collectivist system in disguise. The same old pig, grunting the same old grunts, wearing a different hat.

From wikipedia:

“Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution. For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly.

At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems on which they depend in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of sustainability. The exact nature of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic of greenwashing. Environmentalism is opposed by anti-environmentalism, which takes a skeptical stance against many environmentalist perspectives.”

See, I don’t agree with any of that. Nature doesn’t need us fucking with it, it doesn’t need to be preserved or managed—it just needs to be left alone.

A “leave it be” mentality is not a meme common in anyone who considers him-or-her-self a _______ist.

The Environmentalist and the Anti-Environmentalist basically have the same goals—the exploitation of natural resources for human usage, with all other considerations secondary. The difference is that one wants to rip it all to shreds and sell it as quickly as possible, while the other wants to do this more slowly and “responsibly.” They both seem to want a centralized “government” in charge of the rules and regulations regarding it all. (I use the word “government” quite loosely.)

One wants everything right now, damn the consequences, fuck the side-effects (pollution, destruction of ecosystems, mass-extinctions), the other wants everything in a more gradual, cleaner, more organized manner. A slower, more smile-filled, prettier, more gradual decline and death.

If one group got their way, or if the other group got their way…I’d still see fences, parks full of regulations and rules, towns and cities and economies. But I think if the Environmentalists got their way, everything and every living thing would be tagged, every bee and bug, every bird and critter, every tree and blade of grass, all electronically monitored and tracked and watched on a massive control grid. The only “wild” ground would be fenced (or walled) in, with barbed wire and cameras and armed guards, and you’d have to pay a hefty fee to enter these Nature Concentration Camps.

Now, most Environmentalists no doubt would argue rabidly with my vision of their future, claiming I got it all wrong, that I really misunderstood them, saying I’m deluded or whatever. But the Environmentalist Movement is a separate entity from its followers, the same way Christianity is separate from Chirstians. Those at the upper levels of the religion (The Church) typically have wildly differing beliefs (and agendas) than the zealots who follow.

I’m saying that people in powerful positions have different beliefs than those masses who go along with policy, procedures, and rules.

An article by David Suziki earlier this month:

The fundamental failure of environmentalism

Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.

We have not, as a species, come to grips with the explosive events that have changed our relationship with the planet. For most of human existence, we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers whose impact on nature could be absorbed by the resilience of the biosphere. Even after the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, farming continued to dominate our lives. We cared for nature. People who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which documented the terrible, unanticipated consequences of what had, until then, been considered one of science’s great inventions, DDT. Paul Mueller, who demonstrated the effects of the pesticide, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. In the economic boom after the Second World War, technology held out the promise of unending innovation, progress, and prosperity. Rachel Carson pointed out that technology has costs.

Carson’s book appeared when no government had an environment department or ministry. Millions around the world were soon swept up in what we now recognize as the environmental movement. Within 10 years, the United Nations Environment Programme was created and the first global environmental conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden.

With increasing catastrophes like oil and chemical spills and nuclear accidents, as well as issues such as species extinction, ozone depletion, deforestation, acid rain, and global warming, environmentalists pressed for laws to protect air, water, farmland, and endangered species. Millions of hectares of land were protected as parks and reserves around the world.

Thirty years later, in 1992, the largest gathering of heads of state in history met at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event was meant to signal that economic activity could not proceed without considering ecological consequences. But, aided by recessions, popped financial bubbles, and tens of millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy neoconservatives to support a cacophony of denial from rightwing pundits and think tanks, environmental protection came to be portrayed as an impediment to economic expansion.

This emphasis of economy over environment, and indeed, the separation of the two, comes as humanity is undergoing dramatic changes. During the 20th century, our numbers increased fourfold to six billion (now up to seven billion), we moved from rural areas to cities, developed virtually all of the technology we take for granted today, and our consumptive appetite, fed by a global economy, exploded. We have become a new force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale.

In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere — air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die. This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere “Mother Earth” as the source of all that matters in life.

When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited “resources” provided for our use, we act accordingly. This “anthropocentric” view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them.

It’s almost a cliché to refer to a “paradigm shift”, but that is what we need to meet the challenge of the environmental crises our species has created. That means adopting a “biocentric” view that recognizes we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable for a demanding animal like us.

What I’m seeing there is the result of people who want things both ways—there is no marriage between “economic growth” and “the natural world.” It’s oil and water. Both cannot exist in the same space. They can’t live in harmony. It’s not possible. The “economy” fucking comes from, is based on and dependent upon, “the natural world.”

Without Nature, there would be no more “economy.”

The “economy” and its inherent business model is based on infinity—infinite growth—and this planet is not infinite. Show me an economic theory in practice somewhere which is not based on growth—which in fact has an end, a point in which the folks and business types can say, “Well, that’s enough. Let’s stop.”

Who says that? Who says, “We have enough wood. Let’s stop logging—let’s never do it again. No more trees will be cut down. Shut it all down, boys”—?

Who the fuck would say: “Well, we have enough money. Let’s stop.”

Who says, “We have enough plastic, we have enough oil. Let’s cease drilling, polluting, stop it all and let’s all make we have last”—?


I’ve never heard such a thing before. I’ve never heard anyone write, speak, or even hint at the words “We Have Enough. Stop Now.”

Economics does not stop. Nations do not stop. Progress does not stop. Power is fueled by greed, and greed never sleeps. It is all based upon more, more, and more, and fucking MORE.

And this doesn’t bode well for the forest. All that “more” has a price. All that “more” has to come from somewhere. Like a cancer, “more” slowly eats away at green, living places.

Anyroad, like the Bible points out clearly (and what almost all Christians—and most other religious and non-religious folk—completely ignore, don’t understand, or don’t give a fuck about) and correctly: “You cannot serve two masters.”

You cannot serve both God and Mammon, a Higher Power and Money. You cannot serve both good and evil. You cannot serve both the environment and industry. You cannot serve both Nature and Economics. You cannot serve both the wild and the tame. You cannot serve both the Spirtual and the Material.

No, I’m sorry, kids. You can only pick one. We all serve something in life, and it can only be one thing—not two opposites.


I was a tool. In the 90s I noticed climate change in a few regions, so I was kinda sucked into to the “global warming” hysteria. But the more I looked into it and thought about it, the more I realized that climates are constantly changing on this planet.

Now I don’t care. So what? It’s warm, the seas swell, there are floods, then it’s cool, then colder, sea levels drop, ice caps grow—and it happens all over again. It’s been going on since way before humans were around. It’s normal.

Yes, abnormal is normal.

The question is: are we causing this particular change in climate?

And I have not seen much evidence to support that we are. The ice on Mars has shrunk along with the ice on Earth. How can what we’re doing here have an impact on a planet so far away? There’s no doubt that climates change, but humans are not to blame for it. There is a lot for which modern, civilized humans are to blame, yet climate change is not among them. There’s no real evidence for this.

“What about greenhouse gases omfg?!?!?”

Yeah, well, there have been such gases (going by ice core samples that have been studied) around for as long as there’s been life on this planet, and these levels rise and fall in different eras, periods, according to what the life on the planet is doing, what the sun is doing, et cetera. There is in fact evidence that carbon levels in the atmosphere follow climate change and do not precede it.

In the 1970s, the frantic hype was about Global Cooling, if you can fucking believe that. From the 1940s through the 1970s the earth was in fact getting colder, and there were doomtards writing about it and begging for government and public funding for this or that. And then through the 1980s, the cool period ended. By the late 1980s, early 1990s, the global average temperature was definitely up. And this produced the current collection of freaks frothing at the mouth and shrieking at us from every available sounding board—that the fucking sky is falling and we have to do something about it now! Oh my fucking god now! Now give us money!

Well, guess what, assholes? Over the last fifteen years, the global average temperature of the earth has not sky-rocketed, as we were all told it would. In fact, it’s basically leveled off. So, if you’re like me and are sick and fucking tired of alarmist spastics ranting and raving and spitting in your face about “Global Warming,” you can officially tell them to “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” and have evidence to back it up and challenge their parroting of their party line. Their religious dogma.

Global Climate Shifts are facts, they happen all the time and have happened for eons, and will continue to happen long after our bones are fucking dust. “Global Warming” is a myth.

Many people won’t accept this—lending evidence to the notion that Environmentalism is indeed just another religion—and I think many will deny the facts simply to continue to oppose those suited, greedy cunts whose only desire in life is to fuck everyone and acquire wealth at the expense of nature and poor people and life itself. Because these suited cunts are howling hysterically now that “they” have been proven correct in their claims that “global wamring is a myth!” But their interest in this subject was only in regards to profit, not truth. I doubt most of them ever saw any evidence, or cared to; they lied, too.

It seems that they’re all dirty, stinking, greedy, hypocritical fucking liars…

Environmentalism is not a religion

I’m so sick of all you lying fucking cunts…

Anyway, why do I find Environmentalists creepy and scary? Here’s some great examples…

Global Worming…

We will have to start feeding or killing polar bears…

No comment…

This former co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) now says the ‘logging will save the world?’

I saw the article in the magazine, “Building The Coast.”

BTC: “Do you feel there’s a promising future for nuclear [power]?”

PM: “Absolutely, because it’s the only non-fossil alternative that’s almost unlimited in its ability and has proven to be one of the safest technologies. We tend to think of hydro-electric as being safe but 126,000 died in one hydro-electric accident in China in 1975. And the biggest loss of life from a man-made accident in the US was a dam bursting in the late eighteenth century in Pennsylvania where over 2000 people died.”

Ah, I see. So this is about trying not to break any records on losses in human life. What a worthy goal.

This corporate sell-out has also been quoted: “The best image that came out of that Occupy movement was this guy who had his jacket off and was wearing a tie, standing there with a sign that said, ‘Occupy a Desk.'”


I guess if you’re religious, and a fanatic, it’s easy to convert to another religion—from the environmentalist cult to the corporate cult. A hippy to a yuppy. Pagan to Catholic. Catholic to Protestant. Protestant to Jew. Jew to Hindu. Hindu to Muslim. Muslim to Atheist. Atheist to Satanist, which is just a new age Pagan.

Anywaty, one more:

Fracking: the monster we greens must embrace

Most environmentalists are in no doubt. The new technology of fracking to extract shale gas from the rocks beneath our homes is both a nasty neighbour and a sure recipe for climate Armageddon. Not only that, fracking was pioneered in the US, the gas-guzzling land of climate sceptics.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, uses high-pressure water to shatter shale rocks and release natural gas lurking within. The gas is then piped to the surface. Shale rocks are widespread. But fracking requires lots of water; the toxic sludges brought back to the surface can cause pollution; and the extraction has even triggered minor earthquakes.

However, I can’t bring myself to condemn it. These drawbacks mean there are plenty of places where fracking would not be a good idea, especially in crowded Britain. But that is different from the blanket ban that most environment groups demand.

Frightening. I doubt that the maker of this documentary—Gasland:

—and all the people suffering the horrible fucking side-effects of fracking would feel the same way.

Saying that Fracking is good for the future of energy is like saying what Monsanto’s doing to food is good for the future of food. Hey, fucklehead, a lesser evil is still fucking evil.

And I’m not even sure that it would be a lesser of two evils…

(By the way, watch that goddamned documentary. You can find “Gasland” on torrents, apparently.)

Here’s another fucking gem:

Earth Hour: millions prepare to switch off the lights

Sigh. This is the break from reality—the separation of action and consequence, sure, but it’s more a rift between words/thoughts and action—that I always talk about people having.

“I dropped a dollar into the can in the store—I’m supporting the fight against breast cancer.”

Why isn’t anyone looking at why cancer rates keep climbing, in spite of the modern techno-wonderland in which we live? Why is everything geared towards Treament, and even a Cure, when nothing’s being done about where it’s coming from in the first place? Fuck the cure—what’s causing it?

“I care about the environment: I recycle.”

How the fuck is that a solution? Why not use less, stop buying so much fucking shit to begin with? We shouldn’t be producing so much crap—recycling doesn’t teach people to be “content with less.” It’s horrible because it teaches people that they can buy whatever they want, consume as much as they want, do whatever they want…all as long as they recycle their cans and plastic. That makes them good responsible citizens. That clears their conscience, more like…

Is this slowing down the manufacturing of plastic? No. Of anything at all? No. Is this slowing the deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, or stopping any logging operations whatsoever? Not at all. Are less cans being produced? Are you fucking kidding me?

Is there less packaging to begin with compared to ten years ago? Are you serious?

The “green” movement is a fucking joke. A cop-out. A gimmick suckering in people for murky reasons. I sense it has a murky agenda. Control always stinks. I can always smell it.

Aside from that, it’s solving nothing. It just slows down the inevitable…a little bit. Benefitting nothing but our egos and the corporations who have jumped onboard this shit wagon to sell us junk. It’s harmful to make people feel so proud about their piggish excess, their decadence and rampant consumption. It’s a terrible lesson for kids:

“Be pigs!—just makie sure to recycle your pig shit.”

Yeah, shutting off our lights for an hour will do a lot. Show our “support” for the environment—like putting a stupid coloured ribbon sticker on the ass end of your gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing, wars-for-oil-causing metal dinosaurs on wheels. People do not have any notion what *support* fucking means.

Piss on your fucking Earth Hour. I’m going to turn more lights on just to protest you annoying, pushy, hypocritical, evangelical, deluded fucking cunts.

I’m going to live in an environment—“caring” about it isn’t a choice. It’s my home. I won’t shit in my bed. I won’t piss in my water supply. The forest is my home. I don’t need to recycle because I won’t be rushing off to a mall in my fucking SUV to stuff the monstrous thing with slave-labour-made crap at fucking Walmart that I’ll haul back to my massive press-board Ikea castle, unpack everything and fill up three garbage bags with paper and carboard and plastic and foam.

I don’t drive or use gas or oil—that’s my way of “supporting” the fucking environment. If a third of the people on this planet thought and behaved like I did, do, and will, then we’d be using a third less steel, concrete, plastic, oil, wood, tin, alluminium, gravel, glass; there’d be a third less pollution, a third less homes being developed and a third less natural ground being annihilated to make way for such development; a third less landfill waste, a third less cars farting smog, a third less factories coughing out toxic plumes because they’d be a third less demand for all this fucking crap we don’t need.

I resuse everything I have anyway—I don’t need some smiling suited cunt to convince me of its economic benefits or that it’s fucking “saving the world.” I need only look at pre-history and how Natives lived, and the respect and reverence they had for the environment in which they lived.

And that’s the point right there: if you don’t live in a forest, why would you give a fuck about it?

You know nothing about it, see no value in it—and must be taught (read: emotionally manipulated into caring) that it must be “preserved” for future generations to enjoy.

Really? Is that why it must be “preserved”—for the offspring of our own species? Not for its own sake? Not for any other ideal or reason? It should be spared utter destruction just for our kids to be able one day to load up their Jeep with camping shit to go off driving down a wilderness road, to laugh and yell with music blasting as they spew exhaust and send every living creature running away in a panic, all so these spoiled brats can drink beer and fuck their girlfriends in a tent later, hopefully not leaving their beer cans and used condoms lying around after they do the forest a favour and fuck off outta there back to the loving golden arms of Mater?

Fuck off.

And what does “preserve” mean exactly?

Control. Manage. Organize.

More bureaucracy. Parks. Fenced off, their borders visible on a map. Cameras. Specific roads for use with specific vehicles at specific times of the year. Rules and people in uniforms enforcing these rules. You need permits, licenses, papers, permissions—for every fucking thing you do.

You may hunt, but you must have the correct weapon, the corresponding documents, background checks, valid ID and other information, approval from a psychiatrist, and you can only hunt this specific creature at this time of year, and you may only hunt this many of them. And all this costs money, of course. No money? Fuck off back the city slums, maggot. Nature is for rich kids, don’t you know. We’re warning you. Keep out.

Or else we’ll put you in a cage and poke you with a stick. Right in the ass.

You want to live in the forest and live off the land? In a Federal Park? In a Provincial Park? In a United Nations Approved Conservation Area? Are you insane?


No. No, my silly friend. No. Nature is a business, and a playground for urban dwellers, and you are only free to live in a city or town and use these natural facilities, provided you have the necessary documents and permits, and follow the regulations.

You are free to live where we say, how we say. You are free to do what we tell you. Or else.

“You want to cook the food you have, eh? Did you get permission to make that fire? Do you have a permit for moving those stones into a circle and digging that pit? You have no papers whatsoever? Any ID? Credit Card or Debit Card? No? I’m sorry, son, you’re breaking several laws here. Put that fire out, put your hands behind your back; you’re under arrest for Vagrancy, Endangering a Conservation Area, Starting A Fire Without License, Upsetting The Earth Without Permission, and Failure to Produce Proper Documentation and Permits Within A State Park.”


That’s all it’s about. It’s all it’s ever about. And it will only get worse. Environmentalism, when you really start looking at it, is fucking ugly and twisted at its core. It’s a hideous, lying control freak.

Here’s another example:

Agenda 21 America

This is part of Agenda 21 regarding the redistribution of wealth and property in the United States. See all that red? That’s for Nature: you are not allowed in these areas. Only authorized personnel. How are we going to know precisely what they’re doing with that “Nature?” How are we to know if it’s going to be natural areas at all?

Not that we’ll have a say in anything, because personal freedoms will be sacrificed in the name of saving the world.

See the yellow areas? These are “highly regulated” areas. You’ll need pretty detailed papers, indentification, and permissions to be in these areas. Want to go camping? No. That is a non-sustainable activity. No more camping, fishing, hunting, skiing, waterskiing, canoe trips, backpacking adventures. You can only play in a city park, under supervision. I am not kidding. It’s in the works, coming to a country, county, and town or city near you.

Speaking of which, guess where humans get to live? I can’t even see the areas on there—probably because they’re too small. Tiny black specks—massive cities in which we will be herded.

Remember the movie Nineteen-Eighty-Four? The scene in which Winston and his lady friend want to go do the unthinkable in the woods? Well, they have to sneak off—sneak away from the city into a forbidden area—where there is green grass and trees.

Here is a short list of human activity that will no longer be allowed due to its new classification as “not sustainable”—in other words, these things will be illegal:

1. ALL private property rights (ownership of private property)
2. ALL forms of irrigation, pesticides & commercial fertilizer
3. Livestock production and most meat consumption
4. Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
5. Use of fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
6. Single family homes
7. Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
8. Human population (it must be reduced to fewer than 1 billion people–from the present population of over 6 billion people).

Yes, you saw that right—number six means families are not sustainable and thus will be illegal. No more moms and dads. The New Order will raise your kids. The New World Order will decide what’s best for you, at all levels, and decide what’s best for the world, at all levels.

This is control never imagined before on this planet.

I am pro-freedom, and thus must be against control. I am pro-independence and pro-self-sufficiency, and thus must be anti-corporation and anti-government.

I am pro-Nature, pro-Truth and pro-Freedom, and thus must be against Environmentalism and against Anti-Environmentalism.

Here’s a good place to start seeing the underlying sketchy nature of the entire movement—it is called Agenda 21:

Talk about murky agendas…check this out:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Alexander King, Co-Founder, Club of Rome.

What is the Club of Rome? Go look it up, do a little research and see. Check out the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Sierra Club. They’re all connected to the United Nations. Don’t believe me, do your own research…

Okay, I’ll lay off Environmentalism and its zealots for a minute, and move onto Anti-Environmentalism and its zealots…because they are almost as bad, just a bit different.

Environmentalism is the greatest threat to civilization

A representative for an evangelical group that doesn’t believe in man-made climate change has suggested that the modern environmental movement is harming civilization.

Speaking on the Janet Mefferd Show on March 18, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance laid out four reasons why environmentalism is “the greatest threat to Western civilization.”

Environmentalism is insidious, Beisnser explained, and it dangerously “speaks to the inherent spiritual yearnings of human souls and it provides plausible answers to dogged questions.” It also incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.”

I can’t argue with most of that, yet I really don’t care about civilization. The disgusting sick mass-structure people inhabit doesn’t interest me—people do; animals do; plants do. Living things do. Civilization can burn in fucking hell, Mr. Beisner, for all I care.

—incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.” Lastly, “environmentalism encompasses all the vague spiritualities that have frankly overwhelmed secular humanism in the West and now threaten the Christian faith.”

I’m always skeptical regarding motives and the agenda behind religious types—who pretty much collectively view “nature” as an evil entity which must be tamed, conquered, or even destroyed entirely.

Why? Because the Bible was written by farmers. Native peoples and nomadic peoples, hunters, et cetera, were always viewed biblically as barbarians, evil pagans, sinners who must be civilized and shown the True Way (farming and kneeling before our god(s) and goddess(s)).

And most of the Bible was written by (edited by), and employed by, the rulers of States (see: the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church in Europe) in order to demonize a wild group of people so that they could be assimilated (turned into tax-paying farmers; serfs) and so the State could absorb them and their resources. The Bible was a tool used ruthlessly to conquer people and steal their land.

And so that mentality still stinks in the breath of its followers, even if they do not support such actions today.

In November, he told the hosts of the American Family Association “Today’s Issues” program that humans could not possibly be causing the “catastrophic consequences for the climate” warned by global warming scientists.

“That doesn’t fit well with the biblical teaching that the earth is the result of the omniscient design, the omnipotent creation and the faithful sustaining of the God of the Bible. So it really is an insult to God,” Beisner said.

The professor, who has a doctorate in Scottish history, was also featured in Bill Moyers’ 2006 documentary “Is God Green?”

During interviews for the special, Beisner said that Genesis dictates humans should “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” This disproves the opinion of the “anti-population growth” activists, according to Beisner, who adds that pollution is a natural byproduct of reality.

While modern humans are not causing climate change, we are (fucking obviously) causing a lot of other kinds of “changes.” One could deny this easily (and defend it okay) fifty years ago, but since satellite images are available to the general public, we can see.

Yeah, you fucking greedy shit-faced lairs, I see you. I see what you’re doing. I’ve scanned most of the world and have seen the devastation, the dead zones of human development, the vast atrocious chunks hacked out of the planet, swathes of destruction, where great grey deserts replace green places.


Naw, there’s no real deforestation—especially in the Amazon, as seen above. Keep moving, nothing to see here…

Fucking liars. I see you.

—pollution is a natural byproduct of reality?

No, wait, let’s think about that. Odd that a Christian would cling to something “natural” to prove a point—but, hell, what’s that expression? “Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose?”

Yeah, that.

I think we are naturally slobs. Think about it. Look at a monkey in a tree, eating fruit and nuts—it tosses everything down to the forest floor. Look at any animal in the wild, it’s a slob. It’s messy and careless. Shit gets thrown everywhere—what we call “littering” and “pollution” today.

What’s the difference?

Natural materials get broken down on the forest floor and become soil. There’s no need to be tidy and concern yourself with recycling because what you’re using came from an ecosystem in which everything gets automatically recycled, unconsciously, naturally.

The difference is this and the fact we are aware of ourselves, and are now using artificial materials that don’t get broken down and have terrible fucking side-effects when dumped and poured into a living and growing natural region.

The difference is that we are (and what we’re doing is) not natural, asshat.

I can put this in terms a seven-year-old should be able to understand, but I don’t know how to put this into terms a two-year-old can comprehend.



“Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”

This is and has always been where I drawn a line in the fucking sand. This fucking pisses me off.

I can agree with Christians, surprisingly, on all sorts of things, but not here. The average Christian who supports this, blindly obeys without questioning, has no fucking clue what it was like back then, no clue whatsoever where the Bible came from, who really wrote it, how many different versions existed and how far they go back in time—I know: I spent years researching this—and why it was pieced together from so many other sources. And it had nothing to do with its content.

The average Christian can never admit to any fact of that time, and before it, due to the probable total breakdown in the Creationist time-line and nature of the persona called “God” in the Bible (his—or should I say her—origins), and, as a result, the complete collapse of the most of the early parts of the Bible—a domino effect that would cause him to question his entire faith.

So very few Christians will be brave enough to look deeper into any of it, and so here we are. And I have no energy for a multi-page rant getting into all this crap again. Fuck it. It would be pointless. Moving on…

First of all, that was at a time when human populations in the Middle East were not great, and life spans were short, and disease was fairly persistant and nasty—no one back then had any idea how big the world really was, or that it even had a limit in regards to space and resources.

Second of all, it was the process of States to produce massive amounts of people—the more people, the more gold from taxes, the larger workforce, the bigger group of worshippers (customers for the temples), and the larger the armies could be…which could be used to expand and steal from neighbouring tribes and villages, towns, and later cities and city-states.

Who cared how many people they had? There was so much land ready for plunder, and besides, any excess in population could be offered up as sacrifices and hacked to death in seasonal wars. The spring was the best time for such slaughter of men. Mars. March. April—Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, Astarte, all the same goddess. Look it up. Look up the origin of “Easter,” just for starters. I fucking dare you.

Third, “subduing it,” well, this is clearly what a ruler wants—not a group of people respectful of natural ways and living things and each other, not a peaceful people living in harmony with their environment. No, only a king or queen who wants more wealth.

But Christians don’t care about what parts of the Bible were added by the rulers of the day to serve their desires, not the needs of the people, not the needs of the ecosystem. However, I’m sure many Christians have doubts about this, or have even given it more than two minutes of thought…it doesn’t matter, though: most Christians live more like the Romans in the Bible than any other group of people or type of individual (least of all Jesus) and anything that supports their greedy, ego-driven, willful lifestyle will be framed and put on their wall.

I love it how many Christians will snub their nose at the Old Testament, or parts of it, where it might conflict with what Jesus said…but when other things come into conflict with their decadent, diversion-filled, material-obsessed shitheap they call a lifestyle, they’ll get wide-eyed and grab some part of the Old Testament to stuff into someone’s face to support their life and the status quo, and what Jesus said or did be damned.

Fucking hypocrites.

—“subdue it.”

Control it. Enslave it and milk it and say it’s “God’s Fucking Will.”

Conquer, mutilate and murder and call it “Progress.”

Just like good Romans. May Jesus come back and spit in your faces…

What did he say?

New International Version: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”

KJV: “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”

GOD’S WORD Translation: “Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest, or gather the harvest into barns. Yet, your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they?

—Matthew 6:26

He’s talking about agriculture. Farming. Work. Labour. The backbone of the Roman Empire and every empire-state-nation before and since. Jesus, a wandering ascetic fisherman, is talking about the very essence of “subduing” the fucking earth, asshole. He’s talking about your fucked-up way of life today. You, Mr. Beisner, and anyone who lives like you.

How’s it feel, asshole? To become the very thing that Jesus warned everyone about? A fucking Roman living a corrupt, diseased, material lifestyle? How’s it feel to know that a fucking non-religious loser like me lives closer to how Jesus lived than you have or ever will? How’s it feel to be a fucking cunt?

He’s talking about something deeper, too. He’s talking about a greater issue—the spiritual versus the material. But whatever. They’ll never listen.

Like I say, it’s easier to believe bullshit.

Whether you’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, New Ager, Environmentalist, Anti-Environmentalist, Pagan, Satanist, Feminist, Marxist, Fascist, Creationist, Anarchist, Flat-Earther, Capitalist, Evolutionist, or Racist…it’s just easier to eat shit, isn’t it?

Why all these fuckers hate each other is because they’re so much alike. They all lie, don’t practice what they peach, trying to serve two masters, and they’re all utter hypocrites.

Fuck all you phonies.

Well, seeing how I just offended most of the civilized population of the planet, I conclude that here’s a good place to end for now. I said all I wanted to say on this creepy subject, anyway.

I’ve never left off with any quotes from the Bible, but what the fuck…there’s a first time for everything, and it fits. So, here’s some good stuff from my man, Jesus. Christians could learn so much from this guy—I guess we all could. Enjoy.

19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;

21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.

23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

25“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

27“And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?

28“And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,

29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.30“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!

31“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’

32“For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

33“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

34“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

—-Matthew 6:19-34, International, top, and King James Version, below

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”


Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

—-Matthew 7:1-7:6, International and King James Version

I hear a lot of things. I see a lot of things. And sometimes I say a lot of things.

I’ve heard and seen things like:

People suck.
People are stupid.
Humanity is a disease.

And these are some of the more pleasant comments about human beings that I’ve heard.

Things I’ve said…well, they were worse. A lot worse.

Recently, it’s occurred to me that more and more people are saying shit like I used to say, but not many seem to understand any degree of distinction, context, or else they’re just agreeing to something they’ve heard and are repeating it.

Before I begin the subject itself, I’d like to be clear, because those who do not really know me might just assume what I’m going to write here. Let me explain…

I used to be a nihilist, and an atheist, and I was probably a misanthrope as well as being an unprofessed feminist, back in my late teens, early twenties.

But, really, a nihilist actually precludes almost everything—a hostile, negative, destructive attitude towards everything, everyone, and myself.

In truth, I was full of rage and pain nearly every day, unfocused. I didn’t comprehend why at the time, and so I took it out on everything and everyone—except most women, who I used to think were a little bit better somehow—but mostly I took it out on myself.

Why me?

For becoming what I allowed myself to become. In my teens I wanted to live in the wilderness, be a “mountain man,” or, ideally, live like a Native American. That was the only dream I’d had since age 13 or so, and when I was forced to give up on it by age 19, what followed was living a life I never wanted, never respected, was ill-prepared for, and found cheap, artificial and shallow, empty, absurd, insane, meaningless and disgusting. In other words, a normal civilized existence as a “happy worker”—school, job, fun, distraction, family, marriage, kids, retirement, depression and alienation and addiction, grinning like a monkey as you march from one cage to another, one box to another, until you reach your eternal box, the coffin.

Not necessarily in that order.

It was never the life for me, but here I was…stuck in it, or it was stuck in me. I dunno. Maybe both.

I’ll spare you the horrific details of the years that came next, but suffice to say that I deteriorated and did my best to self-destruct, as a “nihilist.” (I never fully broke out of the sick, dark sack of venom called nihilism until, on, or nearing the time I began this blog, as evidenced if you’ve ever read a few of the old entries of 2005-2006.)

For as long as I can remember, I have viewed ancient/primitive humans as the best example of human beings, and I have viewed modern/civilized humans as flawed, broken, defective, ill, immature, and overall the worst examples of humanity.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, though I know it’s leaning towards the primal human.

And I know I’ve written a lot about how fucking awful “we” are, how horrible, murderous, vile, manipulative, destructive, yadda yadda. One thing, however, that I’ve always countered with is this:

I was talking about modern or civilized humans. I have never believed that ALL humans are shit. I have never believed that every human on this planet should be eradicated. I know, I know—you could probably find a blog entry somewhere in which I mentioned that the planet would be better off if we were all dead.

Seriously, though, every time it was with the perpetual notion of mine that the tribes such as in the Amazon, and the Inuit, and the purely hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa and elsewhere, were spared from this slaughter.

So, I do not clump all peoples into one ball and say, “It’s shit.”

I see the differences. And that is the context and distinction I mentioned earlier.

Okay, now that I’ve made myself clear, we can begin…

And what of evil?

I never believed in evil. I’d always thought that there was no such thing—that it was a construct created by the religious to spread fear and control the masses. My guide has always been the natural world—if it doesn’t apply to human animals and non-human animals equally, it’s nearly always horse pucks.

But I’ve come to see that it does exist—maybe not in relation to any Scripture or Faith, though. I think it simply reflects the absolute worst state.

After reading so much Nietzsche, I was convinced that it did not exist because nature and life itself are beyond morality—“life is amoral.”

The thing is…I did not realize that morality and conscience are different. Conscience is inherent in organisms; morals are taught, are learned, are reasoned and rationalized—into existence or out of existence.

Without getting into more right-brained/left-brained stuff, there is the sense of right and wrong that develops within you and is collectively shared by all (sane individuals) of your type (in varying degrees), and there is the right and wrong that we’re taught as children. Sometimes they coincide, and here’s where we possess a solid structure of “ethics,” I figure.

But all of this is arguable, and it is not necessary for me to get into fully; I offer it only as a starting point into the subject of evil.

One given used to be, with which most people seemed to agree, was that children, babies, should be protected. It was such a no-brainer; every other mammal does this—protects its offspring.

It used to be a measuring stick for evil—that harming a child, that causing pain to or even killing innocence—someone defenseless, vulnerable, trusting, and most in need of protection—was a damned evil act.

But that has passed. It is not a given any longer.

Check out an update on the issue of “Post-Birth Abortion.”

Now, we must be a person to have a right to exist. Corporations have legally obtained status as a “person,” while our newborn babies are going to lose this and be fair game for murder.


It’s a loose term—I do not picture fire-breathing winged monsters in never-never-land when I think of the word “evil.” I envision someone giggling at the suffering of another; I imagine causing another pain for no reason except for the satisfaction or sick delight of it.

I see a person being held in a cage against that person’s will.

I picture senseless murder and torture, and needless suffering. Needless. Like smashing someone’s kneecaps in with a baseball bat and watching them writhe and scream before you shoot the person in the face.

It might be logical—a gangster might do this to send a message to a rival gang—or it might be irrational—but it’s all evil.

No creature in Father Nature would be so cruel. That says something: we are capable of things that the most vicious predators in the wild, which have spawned tales of the most terrible, most frightening monsters in history, would never do.

There is cruelty in Nature, don’t get me wrong. But almost all of it is for a point: to strengthen an individual, family, or species. What isn’t takes place incidentally: a boulder rolls down a cliff and crushes the legs of a critter, which is forced to lay there in fucking horrible agony until it dies of shock or slowly starves to death.

As bad as that is, it falls under the category of “shit happens.” Yes, it’s awful, but what can be done? It’s no one’s fault. There was no will, no intent, no intelligent design that decided to roll that big rock towards the animal and see it crushed, broken, in unbelievable pain and suffering, waiting only for prolonged death.

Evil is about actions. It is about intent. It’s a choice.

If you shame a child and make it feel terrible about something, for no other reason than you are pissed off or bitter and are taking out your bullshit on a defenseless person who can’t fight back and who you can control…I’d say that was an evil thing to do.

I would not call that person evil.

There is a difference. Objects are not bad. Cells and tissue are not evil. Blood and veins and teeth and bones are not evil. Grey matter inside a skull is not evil.

What’s evil is the choice, the intent, and the action.

So, are humans evil?

Absolutely not.

What many do is definitely, totally, staggeringly fucking evil, but they themselves are not bad. We are not evil. For every choice we make to do evil, we also have the choice to do good. Even if we do evil, we can seek out our conscience and choose to make up for it, by deeds—by consistent, ongoing deeds—of good. To right a wrong—not to gain praise or acceptance, not to score points with some real or imagined Authority—but only for its own sake.

That is “goodness.” Being unselfish and humble and actively making up for nasty fucking shit you did to others. All and only because it’s the right fucking thing to do. No other reason. This is one of the things I admire about humans. All humans.

People do not suck. It’s only what we do that sucks.

People are not stupid. I resist the entire notion of intelligence, or the lack of it. There is no such thing as intelligence, I say—as we commonly (and smugly think we) understand it today. We are as as smart as we need to be. Every creature is exactly as smart as it needs to be; there is no such thing as “stupid.”

It comes down to abilities, traits, sure, but mostly it’s about about how much we use our brains—I’m not talking the “percentage” of the brain power we do or not use; that’s bullshit too. We use all of our physical brains—the point is the degree with which we use it.

Take a diver. This diver has a massive lung capacity. Most people cannot hold their breath as long as this fellow. This guy can stay under for way longer than the average person.

And why would it be to praise this person and shame others who do not his lung capacity? How crucial is this ability to general human life—how much of his day is spent underwater? Are his lungs smarter than everyone else’s? Are they a genius?

Of course not. He was born with the exact same pair of lungs as everyone else, and everyone has lungs that work, to some extent.

The difference is that he practiced and during this he worked on his ancient mammalian diving reflex—acclimatizing his body and lungs to be able to stay under longer.

Same thing with brains. Sort of. The brain is divided into two halves, of course, and most of us work out one more than the other. There are so many areas of each half of the brain that do something different that it’s virtually impossible to let it all go to pot. And some parts of the brain need little “exercise” to stay “fit.” Usually, also, when you work out a part of your brain too much, you neglect another part.

Anyway, I’m over-simplifying of course. The point is: someone might be lazy, someone might be retarded, but no one is stupid.

Yeah but what about all humans being stupid?

How can anyone say “humans are stupid” with a straight face? I’ve heard it said that we just need to get smarter and everything will be okay, that we have “so much potential.” I never fell for this slop. We are what we are—humans are no different than our ancestors were 25-30,000 years ago. We have not “evolved.”

That’s just another pathological ego trip.

We’ve become specialized in certain areas, but overall we use a hell of a lot more of our left-brains now and a helluva lot less of our right-brains.

We’ve merely traded some things for other things—we’re no “smarter” than the erroneously portrayed “cave man.” We’re better at some things, and worse at others.

But we place far too much importance upon intelligence—why? All “intelligence” is…is the ability to use certain areas of the left hemisphere of the brain and how and where it’s applied. We don’t consider intuition or instinct “intelligent;” we do not consider creativity, imagination, or the ability to improvise “intelligent;” yet do we consider the following things: humour, integrity, honesty, generosity, compassion, empathy, and living wisely.

Some of us may value these traits, but I’ve never heard them spoken in the lofty air beside the Royal “Intelligence.”

All we consider “intelligent” is what benefits and helps us exist within civilization—the ability to read and write and grasp concepts others tell us are important; and if you invent things which apparently make things easier for people, you get branded the biggest praise-trip prize: Genius.

Don’t you think there’s a reason for this? A reason that only the sort of “intelligence” that’s worth anything and won’t get you shamed, mocked, and ridiculed, is one a State sanctioned education can provide? What does this tell you?

For most people, the longer they remain in an educational system, the less wise, the less intuitive, the less creative, the less innovative they become; the more their minds are formatted; the more dogmatic and narrowminded and formulaic they are; the more rigid and snobbish and arrogant they become; the more dismissive and judgmental, as well.

And I think most of this comes from education—not the lack of it.

People say TV makes you “dumb,” or the internet makes you “dumb.” But I think what’s “dumb” is just laziness (apathy) and ignorance. It was school that fucking trained you to sit and mindlessly absorb whatever was presented to you. School made you a fucking couch potato. School bored you so bad with tedious, irrelevant bullshit that now you “don’t give a shit”—read: are lazy, apathetic, pig-headed. School shamed and ridiculed you. School was the place you were taught to compete for grades (praise from Authority), taught to respect Authority, and where you learned how to dress to fit in. School was where chicken-hawks got their talons into you and made you a submissive, spineless, shamed, scheming, neurotic money-grubbing minion of some corporation. Don’t believe me? Well, just go stand in line and sing the National fucking Anthem, but spit out that bubblegum first, or else you’ll be in trouble!

School made you dumb, idiot!

What the fuck else could a passive, bureaucratic, passionless and non-experiential learning process bring about? A free-thinking, creative public whose life doesn’t consist of work and entertainment and escape? A strong, healthy, active public consisting of dynamic people who question everything an authority tells them?


School, like work, is quite simply a crime against fucking Nature.

I cringe when I hear folks tell young people, “Stay in school.”

Ugh. No, for fuck sakes. Drop out of school and become an individual; learn what you need to live, not what you need to become a corporate serf—aka. “have a career;” learn on your own, seek the truth for yourself, rather than passively, submissively letting mediocre prats shoot garbage into your mouth and order you to swallow it down.

Fuck. Don’t stay in school.

Show »

Think about it. (If you do not have a lot of education, you’ll be better able to think about it.)

What does education really do? What is it really? It’s obedience-training. You learn to follow rules (while you learn how to read the rules) and you learn, subconsciously, that you are an inferior. Your teacher becomes your boss in the next phase of your servitude, once you leave school. (But, in all actuality, you never really leave school. Your involuntary systematic obedience training (school) just shifts into obedience reinforcement (work), through which you get paid to be humiliated, exploited, and belittled as a life form.)

Most insipid is that you learn (on a memetic level) what is reality. What should you think about, how should you think, and what the truth is. You’re essentially trained to register lies and bullshit as the truth and what makes sense. It is because nearly everything you’re taught is the diametric opposite of the truth. And it’s hard to change seeing things any other way. Your brain just gets wired a certain way, and mentally you become resistant to memes that were not part of your original programming.

Your mind is being formatted for servitude. Your “human nature” is produced. And you’re taught only that which will help you do what you’re told later on, and for the rest of your material, kowtowing, ego-driven life.

A self-made person is someone who actively seeks information, and the truth, from every source he can. Education is about passively sitting and letting the State plant seeds inside your fertile, trusting mind.

If you’re lucky, you’ll drop out and learn on your own. But most end up worse praise-junkies than they were as children—grade-grubbers.

These types of people are ready to follow orders, not to think independently, not to question much at all.

It is only an exceptional individual who comes out of college with any spark of true brilliance. Any hint of real genius at all.

Anyway, there really is no such thing as intelligence. There are only levels of smug satisfaction, degrees of obedience, and varieties of willing ignorance.

Therefore, I figure this was arranged this way. It just makes better drones.

Before agriculture, before civilization, before education, before human sacrifice and slavery, there were far fewer evil acts committed. Research it if you don’t believe me. I dare you.

Finally, humans are not a disease. We—as modern humans—have (not so) simply become the by-product of a viral system: agriculture. That doesn’t make us a disease. Ancient humans lived in harmony with their environment.

Only agricultural (civilized/modern) humans employed highly organized gathering, the systematic manipulation, control and subduing of the earth. Once we started farming, it became a disease and spread everywhere, as we ran out of resources from being sedentary and over-populating, devouring everything within the walled city’s radius, spreading out, demonizing the natives we found, and taking their shit, all enforced by armies of killers and thieves funded by those greedy cunts (the aristocracy) who trained those killers and thieves.

And I suppose this formula has never really ended…

Those were evil acts; it does not make us evil. Even the aforementioned greedy cunts are not evil; they merely do evil things on a consistent basis.


Well, recently it dawned on me that it seems we’re being made to view all humans (except perhaps the super rich; royalty; the aristocracy; the ruling elite oligarchy, if you prefer) as absolute scum.

If you believe that those who seem in charge of the world right now, controlling us, are actually being controlled by a more elite group, who control the banks, for example; and if you believe that this elite group is a very nasty cabal which is definitely not a bunch of nice folks who really love us and want what’s best for us—that they in fact rule as an oligarchy and have for a long, long time and have an agenda for the utter enslavement of most humans; if you believe that they encouraged human population growth so as to create a vast pool of consumers and taxpayers which enabled them to purchase the world and everyone in it; if you believe that making money was not the end but merely a means, and that now they only want absolute control, the final phase of their age old plan; and if you believe that absolute control can only take place through a systematic and multifaceted mass-murder campaign, to reduce the current level of population to a much more manageable level…

If you believe all that, then you share some beliefs with me.

(If you don’t believe much of that, go look up Eugenics, Thomas Robert Malthus, Henry Kissinger, the Club of Rome, UN Agenda 21, and the origins of Planned Parenthood, just for starters. Watch the following documentaries: “Blue Gold;” “The World According To Monsanto;” “Gasland;” and “The Greater Good.”

Then come back here and blithely dismiss all of this.

If you still can’t pry your skull from your anus, check this out:

Show »

“One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the Merck pharmaceutical company–the world’s leading vaccine manufacturer. Records show the Merck pharmaceutical company received a major share of the Nazi “flight capital” at the close of World War II when its president, George W. Merck, was America’s biological weapons industry director. These facts were revealed by Norman Covert, Army public relations director at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD, and veteran news correspondent Paul Manning in his book “Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile” (Lyle Stuart, Inc, 1981).” — Dr. Leonard Horowitz

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.” — John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” — Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.” — Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier

“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” [and] “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.” — Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” — Margaret Sanger

“MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE” — Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind” — Theodore Roosevelt

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” — Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal” — Ted Turner, founder of CNN

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” — The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” — David Rockefeller Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club, praising Chairman Mao, whose policies killed at least 30 million people

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.” — Eric Pianka

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” — Eric Pianka

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” — Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Philosopher

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” — Margaret Sanger

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.” — Margaret Sanger

“Eugenics is… the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” — Margaret Sanger

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many” — Sir James Lovelock

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” — Dave Foreman, US environmentalist and co-founder of the environmental movement Earth First

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” — Christopher Manes, Earth First

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding” — Theodore Roosevelt

“The Puerto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most dangerous and theivish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere… I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more.” — Dr Cornelius Rhoads (1898-1959) | Rockefeller Institute, Rhoads also headed two large chemical warfare projects, had a seat on the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), and he headed the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research

“I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” — Adolf Hitler

“While we were pussyfooting around…the Germans were calling a spade a spade.” — Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, declared of Nazism

(referring to sterilizations) “The Germans are beating us at our own game.” — Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, 1934

“From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution . . . Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated.” “Applied Eugenics” also devoted a chapter to “Lethal Selection,” which operated “through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency.” — In 1918, Dr. Paul Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, “Applied Eugenics”

“Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” — Thomas Malthus

“Englishmen Francis Galton to describe the “science” of bettering human stock and the elimination of unwanted characteristics… and individuals. Galton proposed societal intervention for the furtherance of “racial quality,” maintaining that “Jews are specialized for a parasitical existence upon other nations” and that “except by sterilization I cannot yet see any way of checking the produce of the unfit who are allowed their liberty and are below the reach of moral control.” — Francis Galton

“The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population… If it didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it].” — Dave Foreman, the founder of the environmental group Earth First

Francis Crick, who together with James Watson is credited with the groundbreaking discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, declared at a conference shortly after receiving the Nobel Prize that the “reproductive autonomy” of human beings could not be tolerated in the future. Among other things, Crick suggested the idea of adding a chemical to public water supplies, that would make men and women sterile; only those who qualified for a “license” to produce children, would be given an antidote drug.

“We have to take away from humans in the long run their reproductive autonomy as the only way to guarantee the advancement of mankind.” — Francis Crick

Alexander Graham Bell advocated passing laws (with success in some states) for compulsory sterilization of people deemed to be, as Bell called them, a “defective variety of the human race.”

“If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.” — Bertrand Russell, “The Scientific Outlook”, 1931

“The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” — Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

AIDS and other diseases will be the COVER STORY for the decimation. The real causes will be starvation, contaminated water (which has existed for a long time), toxic vaccines given to people who are already immune-suppressed, wars, and of course, stolen farmland. [2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world’s population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary. [1981] The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy by Lonnie Wolfe

Rockefeller also told Russo that his family’s foundation had created and bankrolled the women’s liberation movement in order to destroy the family and that population reduction was a fundamental aim of the global elite. Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population

Or just go back to watching TV. It’s all good as far as I’m concerned.)

I think it’s true, or that at least there’s a lot of truth to it. And I think I was one of the suckers who unwittingly put forth a part of their plan—“culling the herd.”

I think humanity was engineered to appear as awful as possible, and I think we have been incrementally acclimatized to the notion that we’re utter shit and should be wiped out.

But those at the top who have been arranging this will not be among the dead; they will rule over the survivors. Do you think all the people in those quotes above will be among the first to kill themselves “for the betterment of the planet?” If so, you’re in for a surprise.

None of what they say applies to them.

Apparently, the plan is to have about 500 million humans on the planet. But the “elites” will survive and emerge later to rule to dumbstruck crowds of zombies.

Well, it’s not so simple for me; even though I believe I know what’s coming next, I cannot fight another belief I have: there really are too many people on the planet.

I do not, however, agree with or support what’s coming. We need a predator, a disease, something…something natural to keep human population in check, like every other species does. Not a sketchy, deceptively disguised, secretive and organized methodical genocide.

That, to me, would be evil.

In the wild, an animal kills for food, to rid itself (and its gene pool) of a rival so it can breed, or for self-defense. It is not evil. It is part of the balance of nature.

Anyway, I guess it’s all moot. I think it’s going to happen and nothing anyone can do will alter the slide over the cliff.

Again, this goes back to something that will become helpful in one way, although the intent was purely evil.

Why evil?

Say, you have a farm. And you’re a cunt. All you want is a good series of crops to sell come the last harvest. That’s it. Twenty years and then you’re done. Then you’ll have enough to retire to the good life.

So, you buy some slave labour to do the work. And you sit back and let them all do the work, maybe coordinating shit with your foreman, your task-master, who keeps the slaves in line.

Now, the last summer is ending, but your slaves have multiplied fast—you have seven times the slaves you had to begin with; you have way too many slaves and everyone else has too many slaves so you’ll never be able to sell them—so you plan out with your foreman to burn down the slaves’ quarters after they finish harvesting your crops.

And so it went well: big success! The night after you sell the whole works for a fortune, you get your foreman to lock the barns and fire them, killing everyone inside them.

You used people, kept them against their will, abused them, and gave them nothing but hardship and pain, all for your own selfish, piggish desires. And then you fucking murdered them horribly.

Most would call you a bad guy, some would call you an evil cunt, but I’d just say you did some grossly evil things.

I’d also say that maybe you’re helping the overall overpopulation of slaves; there will be more resources for the rest of them perhaps. Or perhaps you’ll take most of it and starve another pile of slaves, resulting in another favorable depopulation. Point is, whatever good might come out of something terrible…well, the intent was evil and so you get no credit for it.

I think we’re being made to accept what’s coming—maybe I’m too far gone and have already accepted one part of it.

But the more I look, the more I see it: a growing evil that manipulates its increasing justification and rationalization.

And the more I see what’s coming, the more I’m torn between wanting it to happen and not wanting it to happen. Maybe there’s some evil in me, too. I don’t know.

Give me back my broken night
my mirrored room, my secret life
it’s lonely here,
there’s no one left to torture
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
that’s an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that’s left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I’ve seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

You don’t know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I’m the little Jew
who wrote the Bible
I’ve seen the nations rise and fall
I’ve heard their stories, heard them all
but love’s the only engine of survival
Your servant here, he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
It’s over, it ain’t going
any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil’s riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

There’ll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There’ll be phantoms
There’ll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You’ll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin’ to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin’

Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don’t like children anyhow
I’ve seen the future, baby:
it is murder

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

When they said REPENT REPENT …
“The Future”—Leonard Cohen