Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: HikariDude
« on: January 06, 2023, 10:20:58 pm »

Don't forget the rightists who blame Christians and Muslims for overpopulation, then contrast them with Jews considering them "minorities." Judaism is responsible for the root of the problem you're discussing:

As NuminousSun (now guest5 and maybe NSFAN) said, Jesus and Mohammed never cared about gaining massive support.
The reason why there's so many Christians and Muslims is because anyone can follow the example of individuals like Jesus and Mohammed.

Also the reason why Judaism has fewer people is because being Jewish isn't even on faith (non-physical trait) but on physical traits like bloodline and tribalism. Not to mention that it's difficult to convert.

The fact that Judaism encourages its distinct quote (mentioned above) is the root of why so many people existed, corrupting the planet.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 06, 2023, 08:04:02 pm »

"the only people talking about it are rightists"

We are people too!


We proudly embrace this name for ourselves:

"Is there a way we can reclaim this talking point, and make it distinctly leftist? It wasn’t until after the industrial revolution did the population start to really creep up, so the real blame still lies with the west and the countries that adopted westernisation."

This is the way!

"But because worries of overpopulation are directed towards ‘non-white’ countries i.e. China and India, it’s ‘non-whites’ who get all the blame"

The populations of China, India, etc. are indeed too high. At the same time as we encourage state control over reproduction, we also encourage mass emigration from these countries into the former Western colonial powers which caused the problem in the first place:

It is only fair that the former Western colonial powers be required to absorb the excess population of these countries above their respective pre-industrial carrying capacities.
Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: January 06, 2023, 07:00:05 pm »

Overpopulation is a genuine concern when it comes to environmentalism, but the only people talking about it are rightists (not because they genuinely care, but because they can push the blame onto ‘non-whites’ instead of industrialisation and the west’s overconsumption). False leftists will just call you an eco-fascist and lump you in with the rightists if you bring it up. Is there a way we can reclaim this talking point, and make it distinctly leftist? It wasn’t until after the industrial revolution did the population start to really creep up, so the real blame still lies with the west and the countries that adopted westernisation. But because worries of overpopulation are directed towards ‘non-white’ countries i.e. China and India, it’s ‘non-whites’ who get all the blame (which is why I think most leftists shy away from mentioning overpopulation).
Posted by: guest78
« on: December 16, 2022, 12:20:20 pm »

Note how he talks about animals as individuals, rather than as collective species.

Found him on this website:

That is a really good website! Going to have to listen to everything on there! Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: December 16, 2022, 07:01:29 am »

Finally a rebuttal to the mainstream conservationist bs:

Note how he talks about animals as individuals, rather than as collective species.

Found him on this website:

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 16, 2022, 09:11:40 pm »

It’s Time We Burn the UN Climate Conference to the Ground
experts told The Daily Beast that this year’s COP will go down in infamy as the year the conference was revealed to be a true farce.

“It seems like Egypt is the nail in the coffin for environmental activists and those truly invested in transformative climate action and justice, and not just these small adjustments that seem to be getting us nowhere,” Mohammed Rafi Arefin, a geography and climate justice researcher at the University of British Columbia, told The Daily Beast.
Recent reports have highlighted other hypocrisies, such as a glut of fossil fuel lobbyists present at this year’s meeting, a year after the industry’s already outsized presence was uniformly criticized. Over a hundred more lobbyists registered for COP27, according to an analysis released last week by the international nonprofit Global Witness.

“After it was called out last year, how does this actually still happen?” Kat Maier, a national coordinator for Fridays For Future U.S., told The Daily Beast. That Hill+Knowlton, a PR firm that represents fossil fuel companies, is leading communications at the conference and Coca-Cola, one of the world’s leading plastics polluters, is hosting, only deepens activists’ skepticism about the meeting.
It found that 125 of the world’s richest billionaires each emit one million times more carbon annually than a person in the bottom 90 percent economically on average.
When companies are given a larger platform than they deserve at the conference, it’s important to remember how their tenets may contradict the stated purpose of the COPs and drown out crucial marginalized perspectives.
Posted by: Billy Kid
« on: November 12, 2022, 02:24:10 pm »

I don’t disagree at all that it will take statism to end fix all these things, but it is a tendency among false leftists (usually marxists, but also social democrats) to use the 100 companies etc as an argument against plant-based diets and other life style choices which should be law. In fact I believe many of these people secretly don’t want these corporations gone, as they aren’t already willing to make sacrifices in their life style choices even if they’re in the position to do so.

For example, one of their key arguments against veganism is the existence of food deserts. A true leftist of course would reply that food deserts don’t have to exist but it will require statism and city planning for people to have access to the correct nutrition, but this doesn’t cross a false leftist’s mind (or if it does they don’t mention it because it will invalidate their argument - never mind that many of these false leftist idiots don’t even live in food deserts to begin with!)

And taking into account their distrust towards any form of authority, even that which is just and could actually get **** done, I do not believe these people would be willing to support true left statists. In fact many of these people believe TrUe DeMoCrAcY is what will save their asses.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 10, 2022, 07:44:25 pm »


More than 100 supporters of Animal Rebellion stopped the supply of fresh milk across large areas of England in the early hours of Sunday, including Arla Aylesbury, which processes 10% of the UK supply.

It came after the activist group, who campaign for a sustainable plant-based food system, received no response to a letter to Downing Street in August, in which they warned of disruptive action in September unless progress towards their demands was made.

Members of Animal Rebellion stopped and climbed on company trucks outside four facilities supplying milk to the Midlands and south of England. Others entered company premises, climbing on to milk silos and the sites’ loading bays.

The four distribution centres, operated by Müller and Arla, together process an estimated 2bn litres of fresh milk annually.

The group has said its supporters will continue to take direct action until the British government negotiates on its two demands.

However, democracy (especially involving a demos with a key Turanian mutation) makes it unlikely that the activists will be listened to:

“We are disappointed to be targeted by a small number of activists who don’t represent the 96% of adults in Britain who choose milk every week, and we will ensure that supplies are maintained.

“Dairy is affordable and packed with nutrients that benefit our bodies. During a cost of living crisis it is wrong to try to prevent it from reaching families, including vulnerable members of society.”

For success in eliminating the dairy industry, either democracy must be ended, or the lactose-tolerant must be demographically replaced by the lactose-intolerant. Preferably both.

Bonus link:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 08, 2022, 07:46:21 pm »


Analysis-Climate change, scarcity chip away at degrowth taboo

By Federica Urso and Mark John

(Reuters) - Degrowth - the idea that a finite planet cannot sustain ever-increasing consumption - is about the closest you can get to a heresy in economics, where growth is widely held as the best route to prosperity.

But, as climate change accelerates and supply chain disruptions offer rich-world consumers an unaccustomed taste of scarcity, the theory is becoming less taboo and some have started to ponder what a degrowth world might look like.

After the U.N. climate science agency this year called for cuts in consumer demand - a core degrowth premise - the think tank that runs the Davos forum published a degrowth primer in June and the issue has even begun to crop up in investment notes.

In short, it took them until now figure out what I as a child had figured out within several minutes while sitting in my first ever class about global warming.

In April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that outright cuts to consumer demand were needed to reduce carbon emissions, a shift from a previous focus on the promise of sustainable fuel technology.


The article on degrowth published in June by Davos-organiser the World Economic Forum hinted at degrowth impacts, suggesting "it might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and travelling less".

And, most importantly of all, REPRODUCING LESS FFS!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 30, 2022, 10:33:50 pm »

It takes an enormous amount of land to raise cattle – land that would sequester more carbon as grass that doesn’t get grazed and forests that are not felled for pasture.

It also takes an enormous amount of food to feed cattle. About 55% of the grain grown in the US goes to fattening cows (and other animals). And as the ruminants chew, they burp out methane, a powerful planet-warming greenhouse gas. Meanwhile, animal waste and fertilizer runoff pollute rivers and poison drinking water supplies.

Eating less meat – primarily beef but pork and chicken, too – would free pasture and cropland, eliminate the suffering of billions of animals and improve human health by restoring clean water and reducing Americans’ calorie and saturated fat intake. Yet it’s an excruciatingly hard sell.
The US intentionally produces a vast surplus of food. The country’s food supply, what is grown and imported, amounts to about 4,000 calories a day for every adult, child and infant. “There’s no reason why we should be growing all that food,” Nestle said. “It’s not for us anyway – it’s for animals or automobiles.”

Not only do tons of US crops get turned into livestock feed but a staggering proportion (40% of corn, which accounts for the vast majority of the nation’s crops) is used to make gas for cars
The government mandates that ethanol, a renewable fuel typically made from corn, be mixed into gasoline to displace a portion of fossil fuels.

The goal is to reduce fuel emissions, but when you factor in the ecological impact of raising more corn to meet ethanol demand, research has found that the math doesn’t check out. That as much or more corn goes to making ethanol than either feeding people or animals is “clearly bonkers”, said Patel.

Producing biogas from cows’ methane waste is similarly better in theory than extracting fossil fuels. But dairies are cashing in on incentives to convert their emissions into energy, which perversely encourages the expansion of factory farms to generate more waste.

When will the mainstream reach the simple conclusion that problems created by Western civilization cannot be solved by more Western civilization?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: June 08, 2022, 08:35:55 pm »

After his election in April 2022, prime minister Shehbaz Sharif implemented a six-day work week for public-sector workers. That will now be cut back to five, and the government is considering a mandate that employees work from home on Fridays.
Venezuela temporarily adopted a similar cut during an energy crisis in 2016, and the idea has been floated by energy executives over the last year in the UK, which also relies heavily on natural gas imports. The move may have the added benefit of lowering Pakistan’s carbon footprint.
The fastest solution to high energy prices is to find creative ways to chip away at demand.

So obvious (and what I have been recommending for decades)!

The next step is to realize that the best way to reduce demand for energy is not merely to promote lifestyle frugality (though that is good too) but to reduce the total number of demanders. (And the first ones to be reduced should be those whose bloodlines created the one civilization uniquely to blame for increasing demand for energy to the insane present-day levels in the first place. You all know which one I am talking about by now.)
Posted by: rp
« on: January 30, 2022, 09:24:31 am »

They should have the same attitude toward machinists.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: January 30, 2022, 05:50:56 am »

China Jails Almost 50 Steel Executives for Faking Emissions Data

China will jail forty-seven steel company officials for faking air pollution data, in a sign that Beijing’s crackdown on firms that are flouting environmental rules is intensifying.

The officials who worked at four mills in Tangshan city near Beijing, China’s top steelmaking hub, were give prison sentences from six to eighteen months, the municipal government said in a statement on its WeChat channel that cited court documents.

The sentences underscore Beijing’s push to clean up a major source of air pollution. Authorities have ramped up environmental controls on the steel industry over the past decade in a bid to reduce bouts of dirty air. The goal is to have more than 530 million tons of capacity in the “ultra-low emissions” category by 2025.

As time goes on, the ineffectiveness of democracy will continue to be demonstrated.

It is impossible for democratic governments to do because the political parties need the backing of the ultra rich.

That's a bug in the democracies that must be fixed.

This is one of the things that China does really well (as long as it's not just eliminating political enemies). They'll just straight up disappear billionaires (72 billionaire unnatural deaths over a 8 year period) and put the fear of god in the wealthy class.
    Among the 72 billionaires, 15 were murdered, 17 committed suicide, seven died from accidents, 14 were executed according to the law and 19 died from diseases.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 08, 2022, 03:08:27 am »

Mainstream academics slowly learn ecofascism:

A study published in a peer-reviewed academic journal suggests that "authoritarianism" could be necessary to fight against climate change.

The study, published in Cambridge University’s American Political Science Review and first reported by the Foundation For Economic Education, leads with a question of "is authoritarian power ever legitimate?" before the author outlines how it could be when combating climate change.

I figured this out when I was in primary school!

The study states that it is "ultimately an empirical question whether authoritarian governance is better able to realize desired environmental outcomes and, if so, why and to what extent."

Yes, it is better. Because all it takes is a leader who cares (instead of a majority of the population). To the extent that the leader  is willing to reduce the population, preferably by preventing reproduction.

The study drew criticism on Twitter, most notably from Alexander Wuttke, political psychology professor at the University of Mannheim, who called the study "disturbing."

"In my reading, it explicitly argues that we must put climate action over democracy and adopt authoritarian governance if democracies fail to act on climate change," Wuttke tweeted.

Yes. (And we should end democracy anyway.)

Mittiga responded to the criticism with a lengthy Twitter thread writing that his paper is "meant to be a warning about the threats climate change poses to democratic governance and human rights."

"In other words, I argue that we should all be advocating for rapid and extensive climate action, *precisely for the sake of preserving democracy and human rights*, which face their biggest threats in the context of security emergencies, like climate change," Mittiga adds.

I do not argue this. I argue that it was by no coincidence under democracy that the Industrial Revolution happened in the first place, which alone should have been enough to discredit democracy once and for all in the eyes of those who care about the environment.