Evil Twins: Tyrannical Thanos and the Totalitarian Green New Deal

By Lennie Jarratt and Chris Talgo

In Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos, the Mad Titan, certainly has a warped sense of environmental sustainability. His plan to save the galaxy from pending environmental doom is predicated upon eliminating roughly half of the universe’s population. Warning: spoiler alert. Thanos successfully implements his plan by gaining complete power over time, space, minds, souls, and reality.

Astonishingly, proponents of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) Green New Deal have an eerily similar strategy for environmental sustainability. Apparently, they have watched Infinity War a few too many times.

Like Thanos, Ocasio-Cortez and her minions crave unfettered power so they can implement their ludicrous sustainability plan, which would include a government takeover of health care, the end of air travel, the mass slaughter of cows because cow flatulence contains methane, the termination of all fossil fuel use in 10 years, the upgrade of every single building in the nation, and a universal basic income—even for those unwilling to work.

Ocasio-Cortez and her cadre of climate militants are more focused on moral superiority than on science, facts, and economic theory. They ardently believe they can predict the future climate, marketing their “solution” as the only way to avoid environmental apocalypse. Anyone who questions their solution is automatically labeled a denier—someone out to destroy the world.

Just consider some of the crazy claims the so-called climate change clairvoyant has spouted recently. In January, Ocasio-Cortez said “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Of course, Ocasio-Cortez failed to provide one smidgen of evidence to support this utterly outrageous proclamation.

Shortly after this absurd statement, she compared her self-declared war against climate change to World War II—the most destructive war in human history, in which more than 100 million people lost their lives. According to Ocasio-Cortez, “This is the war—this is our World War II.” For Ocasio-Cortez and her eco-warriors to equate the supposed evil menace of climate change with the actual evil menace posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is not only insulting to the brave soldiers who died in battle—it is also flat-out historically ignorant.

Whereas Thanos uses infinity stones to control his victims, climate change zealots such as Ocasio-Cortez and her acolytes have infiltrated the public school system, higher education, and the media in their attempt to indoctrinate the American public on the supposed environmental doomsday looming just around the corner.

Ocasio-Cortez is all too willing to abuse her position in government to gain power over people’s very lives (and souls). She and her fearmongering forbearers (Vice President Al Gore) have pushed their crazy ideology over many years, hoping they reach a point where their insane environmental positions no longer remain in the shadows. Of course, if they had their own infinity gauntlet, they’d certainly use it.

Their endgame is clear: gain power, destroy capitalism, and replace it with socialism. Just as Thanos didn’t care how many worlds he destroyed or how many people he killed, the Green New Deal zealots will try to implement their ideology regardless of how much it costs or how many people (and cows) will suffer and even die because of it.

No matter what they call their attempt to gain unencumbered power—the Green New Deal, socialism, or democratic socialism—it is dictatorial and totalitarian in nature. Some Americans may submit, while others may even aid and abet the eco-zealots in their attempt to seize total power.

However, it is much more likely most Americans will defy this ridiculous power grab. Totalitarianism is the only way their ideology can be implemented. We cannot wait to avenge this destruction. We must stop this dictatorial socialism before it gains traction.


Lennie Jarratt is a state government relations manager at The Heartland Institute. Chris Talgo is an assistant editor at The Heartland Institute.

57 thoughts on “Evil Twins: Tyrannical Thanos and the Totalitarian Green New Deal

    • Ah, but Democrats see Trump as Thanos, and themselves as saviors of humanity. Except they prefer the methods of Thanos.

      • Except that Thanos is kind of deep and thoughtful. Evil, yeah, they guess so, but not vulgar and shallow like the Orange Man in their heads.

        My brother-in-law has a beautiful baby daughter, for whom he is the primary caregiver as his wife has a great job that supports them. I sympathize with his frustration at being thrust into daily hand-to-hand combat with a toddler, but not this: he calls my husband weekly to complain about how he never wanted a child, never wanted to bring another life into this benighted and doomed world – this world we are killing. Isn’t that Thanos writ small? He HAS a child – she’s not theoretical. He is intimately involved in the future. But he can’t let go of his conviction that the future is a place unsuitable for humans. Weekly, he wishes his daughter didn’t exist. I find it all horrifying.

      • ‘Democrats see Trump as Thanos’

        That’s just one more case of them projecting what they are on anyone who opposes them.

    • Regarding the motives of the radical greens, see my recently-published article:

      “HYPOTHESIS: RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE”
      at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/

      9. CONCLUSION
      The evidence strongly supports my hypothesis that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.
      The number of deaths and shattered lives caused by radical-green activism since ~1970 rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – they advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policie and are indifferent to the resulting environmental damage and human suffering.
      _________________________________________

      For radical greens, it was never about the environment – the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives.

      The Climate Cult has taken over the environmental movement, universities, professional societies, political parties, governments and the United Nations. Many of the leaders of the Climate Cult are openly or covertly totalitarian and Malthusian – their stated objective is to reduce human population to a small fraction of our current numbers, and they are indifferent to human suffering and environmental damage.

      The destruction of modern society is their primary objective; to date, they are winning.
      _________________________________________

      • These day you can also find them in places that are tangential but part and parcel to environmental causes; like abortion, so-called “planned parenthood”, infanticide. AKA population control – is good for the environment. Like getting rid of all our live stock is “good for the environment and the open plains ecology”.

        And yet they still want us to believe they are the champions of humanity and especially for the “so-called” disenfranchised when it is their policies that disenfranchised those people or groups of people.

      • For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
        – President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961.

    • No spoilers here but saw ‘Avengers: Endgame’ yesterday. 5 stars +. Bittersweet.

      A must see.

  1. … the upgrade of every single building in the nation …”

    AOC killed the Amazon Deal in large part because of gentrification. Upgrading of every single building is the ultimate gentrification.

    • “AOC killed the Amazon Deal in large part because of gentrification.”

      In other words, she killed the deal out of stupidity.

      • Tom, that goes without saying. Anyone who thinks that the money that Amazon would have “gotten” via tax breaks can be spent elsewhere now that Amazon won’t be there to generate that money isn’t the brightest bulb.

  2. I remember more than half a lifetime ago Democrats always said ‘you can’t legislate morality’.
    Now they promote totalitarianism under the guise of ‘legislating morality’ – they flipped their script.

    • It’s not that they flipped the script, it’s that back then they were only telling you half the story.
      When they said that you can’t legislate moraility, what they actually meant was that you can’t legislate YOUR morality. Theirs on the other hand, was perfectly adaptable to legalization.
      When they said that they support free speech, what they were actually saying was that they support free speech for themselves. Everyone else was supposed to sit down and shut up.
      Whenever they talk about the wonders of higher taxes, they never had any intention of those taxes applying to themselves. It was always someone else who would have to shoulder the burden of paying for the free stuff they wanted.

      • Exactly true. As a Cal (UC Berkeley) student in the 60’s I’m deeply offended by those (many conservatives) who say things like, “but the left was in favor of free speech back in the ‘Free Speech Movement’ at Berkeley in the 60’s”. NO! The “Free Speech Movement” was only about free speech for communists. They had no intention of allowing free speech for anyone else and shut down attempts by anti-communists to speak on campus.

  3. If they are prepared to slaughter cows because of their digestive methane, what do they propose to do about termites and their much more potent CO2?

  4. I’m unwilling to go over to the USA and work, since I am quite content where I am. Since I qualify by being unwilling, could you send the money over here, please?

    • I’m unwilling to go over to the USA and work, since I am quite content where I am. Since I qualify by being unwilling, could you send the money over here, please?

      Sure, just email AOC, I’m sure she can hook you up by paying you from the tax breaks amazon would have gotten from the NYC deal.

  5. If there are enough fools in America to elect these idiots, there will be serious pushback.

    I don’t see anything in the Constitution that would allow them to carry out a GND.

    These soulless postmodern neoMarxist authoritarians would crash the stockmarket early on…and then after everybody’s life savings have evaporated things would turn really ugly. It might be harder to steal $80 Trillion in hard won assets without violence breaking out than it would seem. The military will not just sit on the sidelines forever. They swore oaths to the Constitution, not to politicians.

    The US voters need to keep these neomarxists out of power until natural cooling occurs in the next 1 – 2 decades…and the hoax collapses. A tall order historically.

    • They would blame the stock market collapse and the economic problems on those evil capitalists who were trying to sabotage the plans of the kind and compassionate socialists. Therefore the kind and compassionate socialists need even more power and money in order to fight for the under protected average man.
      And the vast majority of those who voted for them in the first place would rise in thunderous applause.

      • A leading economic counselor, I can’t remember his name, is predicting that hatred for Trump will drive the Federal Reserve to jacking up interest rates so that the market will crash, and then blame Trump for all the turmoil and get him voted out of office. The problem with that scheme is that Trump has already blamed the Fed for trying to do just that about 6 months ago. The American people are becoming a little more aware of the Feds shenanigans, and it might not be so easy to blame Trump for a recession, if it happens.

        Still, they are quite desperate to get rid of him.

        • And yet, despite all their efforts and predictions of economic doom, the US economy is chugging along nicely. The 1st quarter numbers are in and it’s another impressive gain, beating even the optimist’s expectations by a percent or more. Someone should put together a montage of all the talking heads predicting a recession or even total economic collapse just after the election, then juxtapose that with the reality of a strong economy, low unemployment, and increasing wages. Just to remind people just how wrong (and how often) these people are.

          • “Someone should put together a montage of all the talking heads predicting a recession or even total economic collapse just after the election, then juxtapose that with the reality of a strong economy, low unemployment, and increasing wages. Just to remind people just how wrong (and how often) these people are.”

            We don’t even have to go back to right after the election for examples, we have examples from just a few days to a few weeks ago of economic doom by some of the Left’s big-name economists, and every one of them missed the mark badly. A segment was done about this on Fox&Friends (Fox News Channel) this morning.

            That TDS extends even into the field of economics, doesn’t it. The Lefty economists see what they want to see, not what is actually there. This is a serious human mental problem. In all fields of endeavor. A lot of people are living in a make-believe world. One of their own making, with a little help from the propagandists.

          • And yet, despite all their efforts and predictions of economic doom, the US economy is chugging along nicely. The 1st quarter numbers are in and it’s another impressive gain, beating even the optimist’s expectations by a percent or more.

            What’s even better (but doesn’t seem to have gotten much discussion) is that “they” were predicting low numbers in part because of the “devastation” to the economy of the government shutdown. Either the government shutdown had F-all effect on the economy or else those numbers would have been even higher without a shutdown or shutting down the government actually boosted the economy.

        • “The problem with that scheme is that Trump has already blamed the Fed for trying to do just that about 6 months ago.”

          And Trump came out yesterday and was touting the first quarter 3.2 percent GDP growth and had a little bit of of complaint about the Fed saying that 3.2 would have been even higher if not for Fed actions. And he is correct.

          The Feb is a little too risk averse. Although I’m sure people with savings accounts probably appreciate the higher interest rates.

          The economy is doing fine. There’s no inflation. The Fed should take note.

          Trump told OPEC yesterday to pump more oil to get the gasoline prices down. 🙂

        • The problem is that the Fed lowered interest rates to the point where they were actually negative when compared to inflation during the last recession and they still haven’t raised rates back to where they were before the Obama recession.

          • The fed lowered interest rebates and kept them low during Obama’s time in office. This worked to boost the market for a time and then the market paused. For the last two years of Obama’s terms, prior to the Trump election, markets went nowhere. Dow at ~17900 between November 2014 to November 2016. If there had been a rate raise during this time it probably would have crashed the market.

            Trump wins and markets take off. Fed responds with multiple quick rate raises (~2% since election) and promises of more which stops market growth. Trump calls fed on this and they back off. Markets rejoice. There’s no problem with more rate raises, but there is no need to implement them all at once.

          • The only problem with the rate raises is the Fed tried to raise them too quickly, rather than slow rolling them so as to gauge how the market and inflation reacted to each rate raise before announcing/implementing the next one or not based on actual market conditions. “an accelerated rate schedule ” as the Fed was pushing was entirely the wrong way to go and Trump called them out on it.

        • A leading economic counselor, I can’t remember his name, is predicting that hatred for Trump will drive the Federal Reserve to jacking up interest rates so that the market will crash, and then blame Trump for all the turmoil and get him voted out of office.

          As you note, Trump already called them out on it the last time they raised rates and he won’t hesitate to call them out on it the next time they raise rates, so if a crash follows a Fed rate hike Trump is in position to say “I told you so” thus blunting any of the attempts to place the blame his way.

  6. Quotes from those some wannabe elites…

    1. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”

    2. Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied”

    3. Paul Ehrlich again, this time on the size of families: “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”

    4. Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

    5. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

    6. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”

    7. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

    8. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

    9. HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

    10. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: ”The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”

    11. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”

    12. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“

    13. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

    14. Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.

    We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.”

    15. John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

    16. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

    17. Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”

    18. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”

    19. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

    20. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

    21. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”

    22. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

    23. Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

    24. Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “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.

    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.”

    25. David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “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.”

    26. Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”

    27. Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

    28. Jacques Costeau: “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.”

    29. Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”

    30. Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

    31. “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.”
    Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren, Co-author of “Ecoscience”

    • Just curious: Are any of those eco-goons willing to submit to mandatory euthanasia? Them first.

      Mandatory euthanasia was the theme of “Logan’s Run”. But the entire council was a bunch of graying old gasbags who decided at what age it took place.

      I haven’t seen that much doom and gloom in a long, long time.

      • Mandatory euthanasia was the theme of “Logan’s Run”.

        indeed it is.

        But the entire council was a bunch of graying old gasbags who decided at what age it took place.

        That’s the TV series version. For the movie and the novels it’s a computer that runs the show. In the movie, only the old man they meet in the ruins of Washington DC is over the age of 30. In the novel, the only one over 21 is Francis (aka Ballard) who is 42 – his life clock malfunctioned (it doesn’t change color) and thus through the use of plastic-surgery shops, he has been able to disguise his true age and appearance and (as Ballard) secretly helps runners reach sanctuary.

    • “1. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources.”

      The way to fix this is to increase the level of affluence of all the poor nations on Earth to the level of affluence of the modern, industrialized nations. As affluence goes up, population goes down in those countries to the point that it is below replacement levels, which means the population is decreasing not increasing.

      The way to raise poor nations affluence is to supply them with adequate amounts of electricity. The way to do that is to build electric generating plants as quickly as possible in those areas of the world. And by electric generators I mean anything that is *not* a windmill or industrial solar. Neither ot those technologies will get the job done for poor nations.

      So there actually is a practical, available way to take the human population pressure off the biosphere: Give humans enough affluence that they naturaly cut back on childbirth to the point that population numbers will actually decrease naturally, slowly and without detrimental impacts to the rest of humanity.

      Then we throw in the CAGW boogeyman, and complicate the hell out of the thinking about solutions.

      • I meant to put this in my comment above.

        Industrialization and modernization of the developing world is solving the so-called population problem or “bomb”.

        You just do not need as many humans around once you have electricity and large scale industry.

    • All of that crap is based on two fallacies:
      1. We really know what the carrying capacity of the planet is, and
      2. All current trends will continue unchanged without their specific intervention (which usually involves heavy-handed totalitarian type control)

      Knowing this, and looking at their track record of failed predictions, why would anybody pay any attention to them? Actually, I don’t think many do. It’s just that the media, which is filled with their true believers, make it seem like their positions are popular, when in fact, most people know they are nutters.

    • Quotes from those some wannabe elites…

      1. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth… Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”

      I don’t see Sir David lining up to be part of the population plague that needs to “be limited”

      2. Paul Ehrlich,… : “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population)…”

      Mr. Ehrlich has never volunteered to be part of the population that gets reduced. You first Mr Ehrlich.

      5. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

      Mr Turner is another one who has yet to volunteer to be part of the 95% that needs to decline.

      6. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso … “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”

      The Deputy PM doesn’t seem all that willing to hurry up and die himself.

      8. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “… the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

      Somehow I suspect Mr. Martin wants to be among the fewer with better lives rather than the many who have to be eliminated to provide for his “optimum population”.

      9. HBO personality Bill Maher: “It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

      And yet Bill isn’t volunteering to be a promotional advertisement.

      12. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro … “significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“

      Why are you planning on volunteering to be part of the group that get significantly reduced professor?

      13. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

      See as you bear no ill will to other people, surely you must be first in line to make the world a much better place, right?

      16. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. ”

      Do I hear Mr Rattner volunteering to be the first person to stand before the death panel?

      I could go on, but I’m running out of ways to say “you first”.

      • “Why are you ” should have read “When are you ” – where’s the edit button when you need it?

  7. …”Some Americans may submit, while others may even aid and abet the eco-zealots in their attempt to seize total power.”
    ===============
    Some don’t play, and you don’t want to push their buttons.

  8. Lennie is right to sound this alarm. There is an existential crises taking place but it’s not green. It’s deep red. That enough people will resist just enough to make it some else’s problem is not something any of us should bet on. The green one has more resonance that the red one. Business and Academia have been badly compromised. So we have to organize and fight.

  9. Thanos’s great folly was presume that an infinite universe contained finite resources and that somehow halving the universal population would create a utopia of plenty for those that remain.

    He failed in several areas of analysis.

    1. the infinite universe contains infinite resources
    2. halving the population does not curtail the use of resources, but rather hastens birth rates leading to ever higher consumption.

    At best, Thanos alleviated pressures for a couple of generations.

    By comparison, the Green New Deal is batcrap crazy!

  10. All of those anti-human speciesists should be required to put their money where their mouths are. It would be enlightening if they, along with the ecohippies, Greenbeaners, CAGWers and other assorted nincompoops line up for their own doomsday and learn the meaning of “You first, Toots.”

    My suggestion is that all of those people who lean toward the Thanatopsian philosophy should willingly volunteer to be at the head of the Euthanasia line, and the cities in which they live (which are quite crowded now) should be walled in so that the only way out is with a very expensive permit, they risk death and destruction outside those walls, and their only food source is biscuits made of soy flour and lentils. 🙂

    When did this morbid stuff start, anyway?

    • I think as most plots to enslave and commit genocide it was started with the best intentions. They usually get annexed by another leader that isn’t so peaceful. The problem with anyones leader, congress, parliament, queen etcetera getting to do whatever they want is that they might be great peaceful, considerate, reasonable folks. It’s the person who comes to power after them that causes everything to change.

      Alessia Occasional Cortex wasn’t elected with her own money, there are other forces at work who are vying for power that the low information crowd do not even know about. When they’re having riots for gas setting bikes on fire, (because that’s the only vehicle anyone can afford to ride) they will understand but probably will never make the connection about the consequences regarding who they voted for. Just look at France.

  11. I haven’t heard much about climate change out of AOC lately. One would think that if CAGW is such a dire threat and we only have 12 more years to fix it, that AOC would be speaking out about this every day and lambasting everyone who doesn’t take her seriously.

    Instead, AOC and all the other Democrats have toned it down on the CAGW threat. Now, if they don’t take it any more seriously than that, then why should anyone else take it seriously?

    The Democrats realize they made a mistake when they allowed AOC to make it official Democrat policy to eliminate cows and airplanes, and lots of other conveniences as part of the Green New Deal. So they are no longer pushing AOC’s version of the GND, they are no doubt revising it and leaving the cows and airplanes alone for now.

    But the main point here is AOC and the Democrats seem to have lost their urgency to combat CAGW. They never talk about it. Except maybe Hickenlooper, but I don’t recall him even being on tv lately.

    The Dire CAGW threat of our time doesn’t seem to be such a threat at all, going by the behavior of those who yell the loudest about it.

  12. “They ardently believe they can predict the future climate, marketing their “solution” as the only way to avoid environmental apocalypse.”

    The Green New Deal is nothing more than the “final solution” for an imagined apocalypse.

Comments are closed.