The Smarter They Are, The Dumber They Become

KA

CZAR

There is an unusual predilection with certain “so called intellectuals” with controlling the environment, and controlling the human population.  Apparently, these gifted people of higher learning have a prepossession against human beings.  While also having a preoccupation with the health of the planet.  Gaia, that planetary goddess these people worship, is of more importance to these people than its human inhabitants.  We, the lowly indigenous creatures, that have evolved to lengthen our lives through medical advances, developed agriculture wonders to feed the masses, and yes, even walked on the moon, are mere parasites on this planet.  Despite such advances and accomplishments to the credit of the human species vitality, these astute giants of mental capacity think our species needs to be punished for the crime of reproduction.   Apparently, we, the uneducated, unwashed masses, are not so worthy to be in the presence of these enlightened elites.

Gaia

GAIA, The Goddess

James Lovelock wrote his Gaia hypothesis back in the 1960’s.  A theory that proposes living and non-living parts of the earth form a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism.  Lovelock is a major proponent of Global Warming stating that “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century.  Lovelock writes in his book, “The Vanishing Face of Gaia” that “It is not simply too much carbon dioxide in the air . . . , “the root cause is too many people, their pets, and their livestock”  “Are we sufficiently talented to take on what might become the onerous permanent task of keeping the Earth in homeostasis?” Lovelock asks. “The alternative is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself.”

Yes, you did read that right.  He’s saying a massive killing off of humans will somehow save the earth.  Who will make those decisions on who will stay and who will go?  Who will it be to make those choices on deciding what will be rejected because of perceived inferior quality?  Who will make those decisions?

Stunning Indeed!

Hmmm, I suppose abandoning living on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and moving to Alaska will perhaps save my insignificant  future.  But what of the Alaskan polar bears, the caribou and their habitat?  Maybe moving to where the penguins live in the southern  regions of the Antarctic, that landlocked icicle that will someday be replace as the tropical paradise that I currently live now.   According to Lovelock, 80% of the worlds population will perish by 2100.  Let’s see that’s only 91 years from now.  Something to look forward to, I guess.

strangeLove

“Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature”

E ‘ai noho’i na huhu iā lākou e like me ka hulu hipa

“And the worms will eat them like wool”

Enter John Holdren, Obama’s pick for Science Czar, appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Mr. Holdren endorses Forced Abortions and Mass Sterilization.  A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.  In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, this man who is now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote:

  • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
  • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
  • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
  • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
  • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

This is no joke.  Our good friend at Zombietime has a more detailed reporting with direct quotes about  Mr. Holdren Ecoscience It’s well worth the read because there are those living here in Hawai’i that are of the same beliefs as John Holdren.  http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

By overpopulating the earth we are destroying the viability of our habitat, not just for our own species but for most other species as well – save perhaps for cockroaches. Why are we not passing legislation to encourage birth control and provide incentives for birth control initiatives in developing countries? Why do we give tax credits to parents with more children rather than expecting those with larger families to pay higher taxes? It is as if no one sees the inherent link between excess population and the climate change crisis.

This stunning excerpt was taken from a bloggers post here on the Big Island of Hawai’i.  A misguided and a dangerous attempt of associating humans for the reason of global climate change.  Global Warming is the belief that humans are causing the planet to warm up to a degree making the environment unlivable. This is the same thinking some have living in this paradise: “I’m here, but you’re not allowed to be here” This is the GAIA way of thinking.

Consensus

This is the rational that these people have.  I’ve got my slice of paradise now and you’re not allowed to have any of the same advantages that were given to me.  They use excuses like this to justify social engineering.  This thinking is very dangerous because it gives people the excuse to propose regulations and laws that inhibit the freedoms we all deserve and take for granted.  They ignore the science of reality and embrace the insanity of necromancy.  They call it a consensus, but in science there is no consensus.  You don’t vote for science and that’s what makes this pattern of thinking so destructive and dangerous.  Even though there is a downward trend of the world temperatures as written in this article:

They pieced together the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of 2008, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.  According to Spenser, “The decadal numbers are +.12C, but the trend has been down since 2000.”

It’s important to read the entire article and examine how the climate data is being gathered.  It clearly shows flaws in the science and collection of data.  Yet, the acceptance of this erroneous data is taken as irrefutable evidence that the world is in a dangerous heating trend.  But has anyone checked the weather on the mainland lately?

Chicago has had 12 days since June 1 when the temperature failed to reach 70. The only other time this has happened since 1942 was in 1969. Then, from December 1969 to February 1970, Chicago had 44.7 inches of snow. The normal for just that time is 28.3 inches. The whole winter that year had 77 inches….

The lack of sustained warmth has really grabbed the attention of many people from the Great Lakes to New England. Even though it has reached 80 degrees twice so far this month in Boston, it has still averaged 6.3 degrees cooler than the longer term average….

What makes this whole argument of Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it so dangerous is the linkage to over-population.  The rational of forcible reduction of the population will somehow save the planet from certain destruction.  Given the recent data that suggests a cooling trend in the earth climate.  If anyone has ever flown over the United States, or any other country, you will see vast areas of unpopulated land.  Huge tracks of empty space.  How does these vast open spaces suggest over-population?

DSC00712

There are reasons why humans have cognitive abilities.  There is a reason why human procreation is so precious and should be protected at all costs.  Those who devalue the life of the unborn and choose the destruction of life are doomed to their own demise.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

What will be the next steps taken by the environ-Nazis to regulate human behavior?  Banning BBQ Grills?  Ban breathing?  I have a suggestion for you anti-human environmental zealots:  Be the first in line to off yourself.  Seriously, if you really care about the environment and this planet, so much so, then do us all a favor and kill yourselves.  Put yourselves out of your pitiful misery and leave this planet, this worldly existence, so that we, who choose life, can live it in peace.

I will thank you, my dog thanks you, my cat, my horse, my cattle, my pigs all thank you.

Don’t let the GAIA doorway slap you on the ass when you leave.

Goodbye.  So long, and thanks for all the fish.

penquins

What’s for Dinner?

DSC00885

Chicken Mozzarella Ravioli, Garlic Bread Sticks and a Garden Salad with Papaya Seed Dressing

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Smarter They Are, The Dumber They Become”

  1. not-giving-my-name Says:

    The situation with over-population is the fact that we, in theory, won’t stop [vulgar content] each other untill the population is SO large you won’t be able to go anywhere without seeing crowds of people. Every city, town, every inch of land is covered with cities full of people because we can’t stop making babies. In other words, EVERYWHERE is like the streets of New York City during the day. Your first paragraph shows your gross misunderstanding of the problem. You make good points when you mention the extreme solutions some scientist suggest, but what you fail to see is that any genocide of the human race will never carry out, that is if he wasn’t just exaggerating in the first place. Over-population is a real problem in foreign countries that can help spead illnesses and cause shortages of food and supplies. We want to prevent that from happening to us. Controlling the population isn’t supporting hatred against humanity and genocide, it’s preventing chaos.

    • Kini Says:

      You obviously have never flown on a airplane in your life.

      Procreation is our destiny. You can deny that all you want. We are designed, and configured, by our creator to expand beyond the bounds of this bubble we call Earth.

      You’ll never understand that, because you are looking at how humans have built civilizations on top of each other for generations, it was economics, to be close to commerce. Reconciliations of humanity’s past, but not the Futurology of Humankind.

      As technology has developed and expanded us into the stars, the so called “intellectuals“, as I call them, would support the eugenics of humanity. I gather by your post to me, you would also agree with the intellectuals, that there are too many people on this planet. We must cull the herd.

      Start with yourself.

      Pioneers, that fled oppression and flourished in a life, in a different land; like those that migrated here, and those that immigrated here. The Mark of Gideon is not a badge of inevitability, as you would have us believe.

      That was the point of my post, and you obviously did not see that.

      We have a soul, we can reason, we will evolve. Death is not a solution. Life is who we are.

  2. not-giving-my-name Says:

    Perhaps I was a bit rash, what I was trying to say is that these “intellectuals” are afraid of the future. Overpopulation is not a current threat, but a possible future one. Yet, I must say, this threat my not come about for hundreds or even thousands of years. These scientist are worried about what we would need to do when, or if we ever run out of room and space travel is not yet ready to drop colonies down on planets. Again, I apologise for my radical and vulgar reply and promise you that I would never accept killing breathing or unborn life. I just believe that if we are to increase in number indefinitly, we need to at least start with a reasonable plan that protects bothmankind and nature. I respect your intellegent opinion, and ability to speak out against big headed “intellectuals”.

    • Kini Says:

      Thank you for your reply. I like to encourage open debate and a exchange of ideas. It’s just that when we hear from these “intellectuals” predicting gloom and doom, I begin to roll my eyes in disbelief.

      The Over Population argument has been debated for centuries, and to the dismay of scientists, we’re still here. As a matter of facts, our standard of living, around the planet is much better than a century ago. Albeit, there are countries with governments that refuse to evolve.

      With that said, food production is much better now than ever was a century ago. Automation, hybrid and disease resistant plants, refrigeration that allows the transport of perishables across the globe, the development of alternate farming (i.e. fish) has allowed more food to be supplied worldwide. You do know that these same “intellectuals” now say we have an obesity problem, right?

      Given the evolution and development of mankind, and womankind, we are destine, in my opinion, to grow beyond the confines of this Planet Earth. Otherwise why would we be exploring the stars today. The late, great philosopher, Carl Segan once said; “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

      I accept your apology, and I hope you will visit and comment frequently. If you have a website, I would very much like to read your musing and thoughts. You are absolutely correct instating that these “intellectuals”, fear what they do not know, or control. It usually boils down to control. Just look at the Global Warming debate.

      You impress me as someone who is a “free thinker“, and I would very much value your opinions. As for my intelligence, that might be debated in many circles, as I am more opinion than intelligent.

      Aloha and Welcome!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: