By Michael Snyder

End of the American Dream

Posted above is a new video about the importance of fighting “climate change” that was recently released by a prominent global warming activist organization known as 10:10 Global. This short video depicts children and adults being savagely blown to pieces for not reducing their carbon footprints. The organization has since pulled the video and has issued an apology, but the fact that anyone would actually put out such a video is absolutely chilling, writes Michael Snyder.

Apology (H/T JerseyGirl):

1 Oct 10 Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

“With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

“As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.”

~~~~

Michael Snyder’s Article:

Most people tend to think of environmentalists as warm, cuddly hippies that just want all of us to love one another and to do what is right for the environment. And in fact, there are a few people out there who are actually like that. However, the people at the very heart of the green agenda are a quite different breed. The truth is that there are a growing number of environmental activists (including some very, very famous people) who are publicly advocating the end of our freedoms, the establishment of a Big Brother style world government and the systematic eradication of at least 90% of humanity all for the good of the environment.

Unfortunately, this is not a joke and it is not an exaggeration. As you will see below, these people are very, very serious. To these eco-fascists, climate change is the number one threat to the earth, and in order to eliminate that threat “democracy must be put on hold,” an authoritarian world government must be established and we need to start getting rid of as many humans as possible.

Posted above is a new video about the importance of fighting “climate change” that was recently released by a prominent global warming activist organization known as 10:10 Global. This short video depicts children and adults being savagely blown to pieces for not reducing their carbon footprints. The organization has since pulled the video and has issued an apology, but the fact that anyone would actually put out such a video is absolutely chilling. In fact, there are many advocates of the green agenda who wish that they could actually press a button and do this kind of thing to “climate change deniers.”

Unfortunately, this type of thinking is not confined to just a few environmental nutcases. For example, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates is absolutely obsessed with global warming and with population control.

The video posted next contains excerpts from a speech that Gates gave at a recent TED conference. As you watch this, keep in mind that Gates has personally donated hundreds of millions of dollars towards the development of new vaccines and towards “reproductive health” initiatives around the globe.

During his speech, Gates presents a formula for calculating the carbon dioxide that he believes is causing global warming:

CO2 = P x S x E x C

P = People

S = Services per person

E = Energy per service

C = CO2 per energy unit

In the video that you are about to watch below, Gates tells the audience that in order to get carbon dioxide levels on earth down to where they need to be, then “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”

So which of those numbers is going to get pretty close to zero?

Will it be “P”?

In the video, Gates describes how the number of people might be reduced:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Now wait a second. Aren’t vaccines, health care and reproductive health services supposed to help people live longer?

Keep that question in mind as you watch this video:

There are others in the environmental movement who are even more open about what they feel needs to be done in order to save the planet from humanity.

For example, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only “a few people with authority” should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.

A Finnish environmentalist named Pentti Linkola has gone even farther than that. Linkola is openly calling for climate change deniers to be “re-educated”, for an eco-fascist world government to be established, for humans to be forcibly sterilized and for the majority of humans to be killed.

The following is how author Paul Joseph Watson recently described some of Linkola’s proposals….

“Under Linkola’s proposal to save earth from man-made climate change, ‘only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.” This system would be enforced by the creation of a ‘Green Police’ who would abandon ‘the syrup of ethics’ that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.

Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another world war would be ‘a happy occasion for the planet’ because it would eradicate tens of millions of people. The environmentalist believes that only jackbooted tyranny can help to save mother earth from ‘the worst ideologies in the world’ which he defines as ‘growth and freedom.'”

Unfortunately, this kind of insanity does not just reside in Finland.

The reality is that academia is brimming with nutjobs such as this who want to see the vast majority of humanity wiped out. For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka is another advocate of radical human population control.

In an article entitled “What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know”, Pianka made the following shocking statements….

*First, and foremost, we must get out of denial and recognize that Earth simply cannot support many billions of people.

*This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.

*I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Now keep in mind that this is a professor that is teaching our kids. People actually pay a lot of money to get educated by this guy. Unfortunately, his views are very much representative of the mainstream these days. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most prominent people in the world are absolutely obsessed with the green agenda and with population control. Just consider the following quotes:

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

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

Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Michael Oppenheimer: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Not only that, but this radical population control agenda has actually reached the highest levels of the U.S. government.

In an absolutely shocking interview with the New York Times, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg openly admitted that abortion is all about population control. In particular, she confessed that abortion is about getting rid of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of”….

“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.”

So was she asked to step down from the Supreme Court? Did anyone make much of a fuss? No, Ginsburg is still serving on the Supreme Court and that statement is long forgotten. You see, the truth is that this population control philosophy runs rampant throughout the highest levels of the U.S. government.

John P. Holdren, Barack Obama’s top science advisor, co-authored a textbook entitled Ecoscience back in 1977 in which he actually advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government and a global police force to enforce population control.

On page 837 of Ecoscience, a claim is made that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution:

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

On pages 942 and 943, a call is made for the creation of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures:

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“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.”

On page 917, the authors advocate the surrender of U.S. national sovereignty to an international organization:

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

You see, that is what those obsessed with the green agenda want.

They want total control of us all so that they can impose the measures that they believe are necessary to “fix” the planet.

Unfortunately, the measures that they believe are necessary would make George Orwell’s 1984 look like a Sunday picnic.

And the sad thing is that the world is not anywhere close to overpopulated. If you took 6 billion people and put them four to house on a quarter acre of land, you could fit them all in Alaska and still have room to spare.

I have actually written quite extensively in the past about the radical green agenda of the global elite. If you are interested in learning more, I would recommend the following articles:

*The Green Police

*Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations

*Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch

*The Dangerous Myth Of Overpopulation

*One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth

*Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

*New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change

*The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

*To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control

So what do you think about all of this? Do you believe that the radical green agenda is a threat to our freedoms? Feel free to post a comment with your thoughts here.

Cross posted at Blacklisted News, sans censored video.