Last week, the Royal family’s Prince William, keeping with the family’s tradition of pushing for population control agenda, pushed (you guessed it), population control. Here’s the thing, when I posted the Prince William article, there was some negative fan fair with folks making accusations of fear mongering and conspiracy theory. I get it, and I got it. The thing is, however, I’ve been saying for years that the newest liberal agenda is and will be, population control. You can call it the New World Order, however, no matter what you call it, it’s a concept that’s as radioactive as it is terrifying. And more than that, the elitists have begun the process of pushing forth population control morality. And one thing is clear, after today, you can no longer call it a conspiracy theory.
This afternoon, NBC News blatantly stated that population control is needed in order to save the planet (AKA climate change agenda). Let’s look at what NBC is saying here and then let’s talk about how tragic this really is.
Let’s begin by breaking down the liberal agenda stew’s ingredients. And folks, be afraid because this stew has all the makings of the next big liberal agenda push.
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.
The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children…
Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn’t have environmental and ethical consequences.
And there you have it. If you still believe the Prince William “assumptions” were a mere conspiracy theory or a serving of catnip for the sake of pageviews, you haven’t been paying attention.
Liberalism is at its very core, a moral high ground. Like any cultish atmosphere, the moral high ground begins to confiscate the rights of others as a way to push through a narrative for which the cult has been indoctrinated with. Liberalism opposes any idea of religion, but by irony and like many cults, they subscribe to a more extreme version of their own morality and believe all those who don’t subscribe similarly are the enemy. But their morality is often an impossible standard of doctrines.
An example is climate change. Liberals push sweeping agendas, but hardly any follow their own preachings. How many liberals take public transit? Buying a Prius isn’t a sacrifice deep enough to truly make any difference to what they propose is happening in the world. They refuse to give up meat. The Hollywood sex assault scandal shows the liberals who consistently pushed to remove due process and replace it with witch hunts, no longer appreciate a witch hunt when they are the subject of such egregious democratic tarnishings.
In the above case, the NBC News writer, Travis Rieder, is formulating a moralist case for population control. This is liberal seeding. It begins as a choice, an option, which if not followed, suddenly becomes a legislative narrative.
Using a few examples, my case becomes clear.
Mandatory Vaccines: Vaccines used to be a simple choice. You vaccinated your child, or you did not. If you vaccinated, it was because you believed the vaccine kept your child safe from illnesses. If you did not vaccinate, you did so believing the vaccine was unsafe, or you felt the illness was not one that was worth vaccinating over. Liberalism, however, spun the narrative. They created “herd immunity.” Suddenly, vaccinating a child was no longer a choice, it was a moral responsibility. Once the herd of liberals in California realized that the herd was not fully compliant with the moral doctrine, they pushed for laws. They divided the herd between “anti-vaxxers” and “pro-vaxxers.” They passed legislation forcing parents to vaccinate their children if they wanted their children to attend taxpayer-funded public schools.
This isn’t about whether or not I trust a vaccine, some vaccines, or all vaccines. This is about providing an example of the liberal stew. It simply isn’t my position to set a moral high ground for any parent, and that’s the very direct point.
Climate Change: Liberals have been pushing a flawed concept of climate change for almost two decades. However, the versions have often changed in ways to force legislation to make proposed moral obligations a matter of legal compliance. The climate is changing, maybe humans are a lot of the cause, maybe a little, and maybe corporate interference via geoengineering agendas are disturbing the environment.
