Democrats are telling us that we shouldn’t being eating meat because…climate change? It’s true. Want to fire up a burger? Kiss the planet goodbye. It’s now taken as part of climate faith that meat eaters are bad for earth…unless you’re a cannibal.
Cannibal?! Yes. Cannibal.
According to Swedish behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund, this can be part of climate change’s ‘sustainability’ solutions. He suggests that people should “awaken to the idea” of cannibalism. He further suggested that not considering the consumption of human flesh is something of a conservative attitude.
Yes. It is a conservative approach and I’ll stick with it.
I’m not sure I envision a neighborhood barbecue wherein the menu is actually the neighbor! Clearly I’ll do broccoli before I ever consider that!
Thus goes the near religious insanity of the left on climate change. On one side of the equation, burgers are a taboo. On the other side, human flesh for dinner is kinda like Aunt Edna on the Griswold family vacation shrugging off the the dog urine sandwich; no big deal apparently.
To be honest, on climate change, I do think that human activity affects the climate. How can we not? Climate is impacted by all things on the planet and humans are part of the ecosystem. Just like a farting cow.
What damage does that farting cow cause? According to the site, Skeptical Science (touting itself as ‘Getting skeptical about climate skepticism’), “Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 64% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 13% and 18%”. Though when broken down to what impacts come from agriculture, the site continues, “On(e) of the main ways in which the livestock sector contributes to global warming is through deforestation caused by expansion of pasture land and arable land used to grow feed crops. Overall, animal agriculture is responsible for about 9% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions globally”
So, is it cows or humans?
That’s the problem. Factored in to those numbers are the human activities needed to perform the various farming tasks. So it’s not the farting cows, it’s still people.
Just like eco-cannibalism, it’s people. Or should I say, ‘Soylent Green is people!‘
What’s shocking is that the left has gone so far left that a concept like cannibalism could be suggested and taken somewhat seriously. Again, cannibalism.
Thus us the current state of affairs on the far left. It is, however, not unique, if possibly not quite as extreme.
If you recall, the farting cow controversy was part and parcel of the Green New Deal’s (GND) claims of humanity’s misdeeds. The real bugaboo of the GND was the lurch in to Marxism with various proposed programs from giving money to folks unwilling to work or the suggestion of taking over the means of productions in key economic sectors. The GND was a wolf in polar bear’s clothing (though I’d be more afraid of the bear, really).
Nonetheless, the ‘Deal’ was little more than a Trojan Horse attempting to push the U.S. in to socialism. Though recently the mighty AOC has backed away from the economic overhaul of America and stripped the deal down to actual climate issues. Ridicule will do the that.
That’s not stopping Democrat presidential candidates from picking up the torch and running headlong in to the eco-socialism fray.
In a recent CNN climate town hall, a litany of candidates joined in the long and arduous seven hour broadcast. Ever the objective news channel, the event was labelled as the ‘Climate Crisis Town Hall’. Not that CNN has a political bias or anything but calling it a crisis seems like an opinion. Just sayin’.
Garnering about a third of Fox News ratings in the same time slots, CNN wasn’t the only loser to come from the broadcast; the candidates were trying their dead level best to ‘out-climate’ one another.
Topping the list of whoppers was everyone’s favorite irascible socialist, Bernie Sanders. When asked if Bernie would make curbing population growth a key feature of his campaign, he replied, “The answer is yes…” then continuing a moment later, “…the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.”
It’s as if the Democratic party wishes to change its logo from a donkey to the Grim Reaper. Is the answer always resolving to death? Abortion as population control? Sure, Bernie wraps euphemistically in the cloak of ‘women’s choice’ but it should be noted that the audience member’s question was regarding population control.
Like China.
As reported in The Hill, “The U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 found that “coerced abortions and sterilizations” continue to take place under China’s revised Population and Family Planning Law.” Noting from a Chinese father regarding resisting a compelled abortion, “No we cannot resist. There would be many family planning officers to take us away. They would put us in a van, directly to the family planning office, for the abortion.”
Make no mistake, the climate argument is deeply rooted in authoritarian Marxism.
Before delving in to the vile pit of leftist Marxism, it should be noted that the most effective means to slow population growth is via economic prosperity. Otherwise referred to as market based capitalism. According to a 2002 study by Seth Norton of Illinois’ Wheaton College on the effects of prosperity and population, “The relationship is a powerful one. Fertility rates are more than twice as high in countries with low levels of economic freedom and the rule of law compared to countries with high levels of those measures.”
Unwilling to accept market economies, the left pines for more control over the population by other means, even though market capitalism would seem to meet their objective of slowing population growth. Where’s the fun in letting people make their own decisions when you can control every aspect of their life!
Karl Marx believed that capitalism depressed wages due to the spurt in growth and accordingly, increased fertility and population. More people for fewer jobs. It’s funny that Marx did understand supply and demand, albeit in a very backwards way. History has shown, repeatedly, that when socialist economies are implemented, the only equality with income is eventually due to no one having any actual income. Populations becomes poor and often scavenging for basic needs a la Venezuela. In America’s reasonably free market society, being poor can even mean having Andriod smartphone versus an iPhone.
Leftists don’t really care. Marxism, in whatever vailed form, is the preferred path to all things awesome. Including climate issues. Perhaps even because of climate issues.
According to Vishwas Satgar at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, “…nature is placed at the centre of how Marxism understands capitalism, history and alternatives. It confronts the intersections of climate change, patriarchy and racism inherent to capitalism. Marxism is challenged to think and act democratically in the 21st century. It’s tested as an intellectual resource to serve as the basis for a new future.”
To reiterate, Marxism confronts the intersections of climate change, patriarchy and racism inherent to capitalism.
What a steaming pile of rubbish.
Such gibberish is the child of what’s known as Critical Theory.
Critical Theory is a so-called discipline cooked up on college campuses by those sociologist types who realized that there are few jobs in the real world for a sociologist. So, instead of flipping (veggie) burgers for a living, why not build from nothing another make-believe science?
What is Critical Theory?
The idea is to focus on “forms of authority and injustice that accompanied the evolution of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system…by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings.”
Critical Theory was developed straight out of Marxist ideology.
What’s any of this have to do with climate change? If you’re keeping your political ears open, everything. You’ll hear the climate dog whistles of Marxism. In response to the recent Hurricane Dorian and video from the devastated Bahamas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated such devastation, “…is what climate change looks like; it hits vulnerable communities first.” (emphasis mine)
Which is a lie.
This kind of rhetoric can be ascribed to what’s known as ‘Climate Justice’. Climate Justice is an offshoot of Critical Theory, “The Environmental Justice Movement leverages the gains and protections from the American Civil Rights movement and recognizing discrimintaion (sic) also happen (sic) in terms of environmental benefits and burdens.”
Environmental ‘discrimintaion’, otherwise known as discrimination, is somehow racist.
First, I’d suggest that if the sum total of your cause rests on discrimination, at least spell the word correctly. I advocate for Spellcheck Justice.
Nonetheless, central to all this is still Marxism. Any Critical Theory offshoot appended with the word ‘justice’ is simply a means to implement Marxism. In the end, Critical Theory is Marxism. Marxism is not so much a movement for ‘justice’ but is simply, as previously mentioned, a Trojan Horse being used to undermine free, individual marketplace oriented societies.
It’s this tripe that colleges force students to learn. It’s also why an Ocasio-Cortez is fluent in Critical Theory lingo. It’s why every single debate with a leftist devolves to a call of racism or white nationalism. AOC has been deeply marinated in all this pseudo-intellectual trash. She thinks she’s the smart and enlightened one, until a fact stumbles in front of her.
That’s not to say racism doesn’t exist. It clearly does. It’s an abomination and has no place in our current society. The earth’s climate has nothing to do with it.
It’s how Ocasio-Cortez can claim, with a straight face, that hurricanes strike vulnerable communities ‘first’. First? How does the hurricane know? It’s also why you’re no longer allowed to eat a steak or why the specter of eating human flesh, to some people, is now ok.
It’s also why CNN sounds the alarm of a ‘climate crisis’, or why Time Magazine will no longer publish articles by climate change skeptics, or that we oft get told that we have between ten to twelve years before our planet’s screwing the pooch.
Ask any politician from the left, whether it be Bernie, Liz or AOC; they’ll all tell you that the majority of Americans respond affirmatively in polling agreeing that climate change is an issue. In comparison to other issues like the economy though? The environment often doesn’t even hit the top five, and climate change specifically is no where near the top ten:
Why?
Money.
As a personal opinion, I’d suggest that no one wants to tell you that they don’t care about the climate. With the exception those few who willingly say otherwise (like a friend who’d often say she’s buying a larger SUV in order to expand her carbon footprint), most folks prefer to appear enlightened in the sciences. In short, no one wants to look stupid.
If the collapse of our climate is so dire, are people be willing to put their money where their mouth is? Nope. According to Buzzfeed (blue=liberals and red=conservatives):
Given that we’re told the world’s on a crash course with planetary climate demise, it’s a pretty tepid response to a so-called crisis when you can’t get more than 23% of respondents to strongly agree. Perhaps with the Obama’s buying a $15 million oceanside energy eating compound; if they don’t seem terribly worried, why would anyone else?
It’s this kind of citizen response that underlies all the leftist politicians calls for catastrophe, or as Pete Buttigieg said about climate change being “…the hardest thing we will have done… on par with winning World War II, perhaps even more challenging than that.”
It why we have to take on climate change like a shot to the moon, or WWII or some other historic achievement leftists try to co-op for their claptrap; facts are not exactly motiving people.
Why?
When your solution to the end of the world is Marxism, even though climate scientists can hardly muster an accurate prediction, and then you tell ’em that there’s no more car of choice, or no more McDonalds, or that dinner might well be Aunt Tessie; the best you can hope for is a population that will look up from their Instragram account, shrug their shoulders and say to you and your climate alarmism, ‘meh’.
Just like Aunt Edna with the pee sandwich.
