The Environmentalist Eugenics of the Left

Obama_Interior_Secretary_0f4be_image_1024wPick up a copy of Obama’s $3.9 trillion budget and there among the TSA fee hikes, Medicare payment cuts and the $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to fight global warming is a curious little item.

On Page 930 of the budget that never ends is $575 million for “family planning/reproductive health” worldwide especially in “areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”

The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.

PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.

PHE had been baked into congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability.”

Obama’s budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the budget explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.

The budget is a blunt assertion of post-human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.

When Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals.”

Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.

Ducks don’t talk, but environmentalists do, and they had vocally opposed helping the people of King Cove. Jewell had received the Rachel Carson Award, named after an environmentalist hero whose fearmongering killed millions. Compared to the Carson malaria graveyards of Africa, nineteen dead Eskimos slide off the post-human conscience of a fanatical environmentalist like water off a duck’s back.

USAID, which played a key role in the war on DDT, has openly embraced PHE. The arguments against DDT often focused not on saving lives, but on taking them. PHE prevents children from being born, but environmentalists don’t stop with the unborn. Malaria was an even more effective tool for reducing populations.

Environmentalist population reduction activists originally cloaked their real agenda in claims about worldwide famine. Paul Erlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” had predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and the end of England by 2000. Today Global Warming activists set empty dates for the destruction of mankind that they themselves don’t believe in.

The post-human left seeks to maintain a state of perpetual crisis so that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even the most horrifying solutions to avoid the end of mankind. What it does not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.

In February, Population Action International and the Sierra Club sponsored a congressional briefing on PHE post-2015. Population Action International was originally founded as the Population Crisis Committee in the sixties. Its preceding organizations included the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace which claimed that population control was necessary to defeat Communism.

Like the Communists, the post-human activists were adept at disguising their agenda in the concerns of the moment, shifting from national security, feminism, the coming Ice Age, mass starvation and now Global Warming.

Environmentalists are even attempting to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda as the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone to global warming.

Environmentalist fearmongering has never been about saving people. Its activists, like Sally Jewell, are too busy playing duck whisperer to care about people.

Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA, and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.

Not only do environmentalists kill, but they also profit from the deaths of their victims.

Elliot Morley, UK Labour’s Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, had directed that flooding in Somerset should be promoted because “wildlife will benefit from increased water levels.” Baroness Young, an environmental activist, who had become the chief executive of the UK’s Environment Agency, took steps to increase the possibility of flooding.

As she said, the formula was “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water.’”

When the flooding came, children were trapped on buses, 7,000 homes were flooded and many residents lost everything. Environmental activists blamed global warming and “careless farming” for the floods that they themselves had engineered.

Survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia which killed 173 people blamed environmental regulations for worsening the fires by preventing residents from clearing trees. The environmentalists blamed global warming and sent around an editorial suggesting that people “who don’t like to end up in flames” should read the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report.

California’s drought was likewise engineered by environmental activists who then blamed their own handiwork on global warming.

Environmentalists wield unprecedented power over the lives of millions and yet they claim that each engineered disaster could have been averted if they had only been given even more power.

The left is not only becoming post-American or post-Western, but post-human, applying the same tactics that they used to target majorities in Western countries to the human race as a whole. Class war and race war are giving way to species warfare. And since the ducks cannot talk, ultimate power rests with the duck whisperers, those who speak for the animals, the fish and the trees.

The post-human left takes social justice to its natural conclusion, going beyond all the human categories to level mankind with the polar bear, the duck and the microbe. Total equality for the post-human left is not the equality of the rich and the poor, of men and women, of blacks and whites, or even of the First World and the Third World, but the equality of man and microbe, of a pregnant woman in a small Alaskan fishing village with a duck and a hungry California child with the Kangaroo rat.

The post-Human left seeks to put the species in its place. That is the final endgame of the environmentalist movement. It isn’t out to save mankind; it’s out to destroy it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • elitist

    According to Edward O Wilson, one of the world’s greatest
    living scientist, and a professor emeritus at Harvard (go ahead, try to
    stigmatize him as a “leftist lunatic”), we are living through a period of cataclysmic
    loss of biodiversity.

    The cause is exponential human population growth, which
    destroys habitats for wild species, and triggers drastic climate change that is much too rapid for most species to adapt effectively.

    This is not a partisan issue, and no matter what Obama may have gotten
    wrong, he gets points for devoting significant funds to family planning.

    Family planning is not a devilish leftist conspiracy, it is
    common sense.

    It raises quality of life, allows families to devote limited
    resources to a smaller number of children, and preserves the natural world for future generations.

    One of the problems with the current ideological polarization
    in the United States is that it forces individuals to adopt irrational positions
    on certain issues (like climate change, environmental protection, and family
    planning, for example) simply in order to distance themselves from the opposition.

    The objective seems to be to insure that there can never be any common ground with the hates enemy (whether this happens to be the “left” or the “right”).

    I hope there is someone at FrontPage was able to comprehend
    the obvious:

    adopting an utterly preposterous position on population and family planning casts doubt on all of the other position you have adopted.

    • Steeloak

      Such calm rational thinking. Perfectly logical. The conclusions are scientific and inescapable. How could anyone argue with them? The exact kind of thinking employed at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. The solutions proposed generally lead to the same sort of results.

    • Servo1969

      Are you transcribing this stuff from a pamphlet?

      • elitist

        This is my last comment to front page – I don’t much care if
        I am censored again by the comments moderator or not.

        There is no useful dialogue taking place here, and I don’t
        have time to compose thoughtful comments only to be censored while the most preposterous hillbilly rubbish passes muster.

        I’m not interested in a forum where it deemed illegitimate to
        point out that family planning is not “exactly the same thing” as the Holocaust, that environmentalists are not “communists who want to exterminate mankind” (does Edward O Wilson fall into this category?), or that Rachel Carson is not a “monster who killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot
        combined,” and on and on and on.

        I would be willing to raise the level of debate here by a
        few light years, but only providing I am not censored and at least some of the responses sound as though they are from rational adults.

        by by!!

        • SoCalMike

          Whatever you say. Words are cheap when you get paid by the word to write or speak.
          In the name of the State, The Bureaucracy and the hOLY ENVIRONMENT, AMEN.
          Take your false gods and false prophets and buzz off.
          Rewrite history somewhere else in your backward like the Times or the New Yorker.

        • GregHamilton

          Thanks for your thoughtful and well-informed comments. I hope you come back. Daniel most of your writing is great but you’re pandering to the mob with this piece.

        • A Z

          ” by by! ”

          #spelling fail!

          • tagalog

            It beats “buh-bye,” though.

        • tryingtopickaname

          So, more succinctly, you don’t want to play unless you can make up the rules and direct the game. You repeatedly cite the came far left source, whose imprimatur must be heeded without question, while simultaneously chiding critics of the information you posted as your intellectual inferiors.Does it really surprise you that your argument fails to attain credibility?

        • A Z

          The problem with you elitist is:

          1 .You pick an outrageous post name and then do not have thick skin

          2. You do not put into practice the “Less is More” paradigm. You might try something like +”headline, lede, nut graph” style posting. I have posted paragraphs backed up with footnotes/links and gotten nowhere. You have to spoon feed it. I link a post will often be more effective than more links. Leave them wanting more. I would figure a Jewish Harvard grad could figure this out on their own.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I doubt very much you’re being censored. Disqus flags some posts for various reasons. It happens to me as well.

        • cxt

          But that is the rub isn’t it.
          From where I sit you don’t wish to “discuss” anything. In the post above you manage to add multiple insults while at the same time striking a “victim” pose.
          You seem to wish to comment without having to listen to commentary.
          Again, from my POV you seem irrational—you wish to parse out that “family planning is not exactly the same thing as the Holocaust” A point with which I agree with BTW, but then you deny the self-same distinctions to everyone else.
          I love to discuss—I just wish you would do the same,

        • NAHALKIDES

          Do let the door hit you in the fanny on your way out, won’t you? The level of debate here will be raised once you depart. So long – you won’t be missed.

        • logdon

          ‘I would be willing to raise the level of debate here by a
          few light years’.

          Obviously modesty becomes you.


          If you raised the level of your repetitive gibberish by even a few nano-seconds it would help. Intellectual competition around your parts must be extremely scarce.

        • truebearing

          Don’t go, elitist! We need you here. You’re so brilliant and humble. Don’t take all of your dollies and go home…

          Now we’ve lost all light and hope. How will we ever “raise the level of debate” now?

        • truebearing

          Stop whining. I get comments “moderated” all of the time, despite no profanity, etc.

        • Lightbringer

          Um, the correct spelling is “bye bye”, as a contraction of “God be with ye”.

          • tagalog

            I always understood it was a shortening of “bye the bye,” an idiomatic way of saying “Goodbye.”

      • elitist
        Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?

        The creation of an anti-environmental myth
        By Aaron Swartz

        Sometimes you find mass murderers in
        the most unlikely places. Take Rachel Carson. She was, by all accounts,
        a mild-mannered writer for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—hardly a
        sociopath’s breeding ground. And yet, according to many in the media,
        Carson has more blood on her hands than Hitler.

        The problems started in the 1940s, when Carson left the Service to
        begin writing full-time. In 1962, she published a series of articles in
        the New Yorker, resulting in the book Silent Spring—widely
        credited with launching the modern environmental movement. The book
        discussed how pesticides and pollutants moved up the food chain,
        threatening the ecosystems for many animals, especially birds. Without
        them, it warned, we might face the title’s silent spring.

        Farmers used vast quantities of DDT to protect their crops against
        insects—80 million pounds were sprayed in 1959 alone—but from there it
        quickly climbed up the food chain. Bald eagles, eating fish that had
        concentrated DDT in their tissues, headed toward extinction. Humans,
        likewise accumulating DDT in our systems, appeared to get cancer as a
        result. Mothers passed the chemical on to their children through breast
        milk. Silent Spring drew attention to these concerns and, in
        1972, the resulting movement succeeded in getting DDT banned in the
        U.S.—a ban that later spread to other nations.

        And that, according to Carson’s critics, is where the trouble
        started. DDT had been sprayed heavily on houses in developing countries
        to protect against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Without it, malaria
        rates in developing countries skyrocketed. Over 1 million people die
        from it each year.

        To the critics, the solution seems simple: Forget Carson’s emotional
        arguments about dead birds and start spraying DDT again so we can save
        human lives.

        Worse than Hitler?

        “What the World Needs Now Is DDT” asserted the headline of a lengthy feature in the New York Times Magazine
        (4/11/04). “No one concerned about the environmental damage of DDT set
        out to kill African children,” reporter Tina Rosenberg generously
        allowed. Nonetheless, “Silent Spring is now killing African children because of its persistence in the public mind.”

        It’s a common theme—echoed by two more articles in the Times by the same author (3/29/06, 10/5/06), and by Times columnists Nicholas Kristof (3/12/05) and John Tierney (6/05/07). The same refrain appears in a Washington Post op-ed by columnist Sebastian Mallaby, gleefully headlined “Look Who’s Ignoring Science Now” (10/09/05). And again in the Baltimore Sun (“Ms. Carson’s views [came] at a cost of many thousands of lives worldwide”—5/27/07), New York Sun (“millions of Africans died . . . thanks to Rachel Carson’s junk science classic”—4/21/06), the Hill (“millions die on the altar of politically correct ideologies”—11/02/05), San Francisco Examiner (“Carson was wrong, and millions of people continue to pay the price”—5/28/07) and Wall Street Journal (“environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings”—2/21/07).

        Even novelists have gotten in on the game. “Banning DDT killed more
        people than Hitler, Ted,” explains a character in Michael Crichton’s
        2004 bestseller, State of Fear (p. 487). “[DDT] was so safe you
        could eat it.” That fictional comment not only inspired a column on the
        same theme in Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald
        (6/18/05), it led Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.) to invite Crichton and Dr.
        Donald R. Roberts, a longtime pro-DDT activist, to testify before the
        Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

        But other attacks only seem like fiction. A web page on features a live Malaria Death Clock next to a photo of
        Rachel Carson, holding her responsible for more deaths than malaria has
        caused in total. (“DDT allows [Africans to] climb out of the
        poverty/subsistence hole in which ‘caring greens’ apparently wish to
        keep them trapped,” it helpfully explains.) And a new website from the
        Competitive Enterprise Institute,, features photos of
        deceased African children along the side of every page.

        Developing resistance

        At one level, these articles send a comforting message to the
        developed world: Saving African children is easy. We don’t need to build
        large aid programs or fund major health initiatives, let alone develop
        Third World infrastructure or think about larger issues of fairness. No,
        to save African lives from malaria, we just need to put our wallets
        away and work to stop the evil environmentalists.

        Unfortunately, it’s not so easy.

        For one thing, there is no global DDT ban. DDT is indeed banned in
        the U.S., but malaria isn’t exactly a pressing issue here. If it ever
        were, the ban contains an exception for matters of public health.
        Meanwhile, it’s perfectly legal—and indeed, used—in many other
        countries: 10 out of the 17 African nations that currently conduct
        indoor spraying use DDT (New York Times, 9/16/06).

        DDT use has decreased enormously, but not because of a ban. The real
        reason is simple, although not one conservatives are particularly fond
        of: evolution. Mosquito populations rapidly develop resistance to DDT,
        creating enzymes to detoxify it, modifying their nervous systems to
        avoid its effects, and avoiding areas where DDT is sprayed — and recent
        research finds that that resistance continues to spread even after DDT
        spraying has stopped, lowering the effectiveness not only of DDT but
        also other pesticides (Current Biology, 8/9/05).

        “No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored,” Carson wrote in Silent Spring.
        “The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is
        either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are
        rapidly making it worse. . . . Resistance to insecticides by mosquitoes .
        . . has surged upwards at an astounding rate.”

        Unfortunately, her words were ignored. Africa didn’t cut back on
        pesticides because, through a system called the “Industry Cooperative
        Program,” the pesticide companies themselves got to participate in the
        United Nations agency that provided advice on pest control. Not
        surprisingly, it continued to recommend significant pesticide usage.

        When Silent Spring came out in 1962, it seemed as if this
        strategy was working. To take the most extreme case, Sri Lanka counted
        only 17 cases of malaria in 1963. But by 1969, things had once again
        gotten out of hand: 537,700 cases were counted. Naturally, the rise had
        many causes: Political and financial pressure led to cutbacks on
        spraying, stockpiles of supplies had been used up, low rainfall and high
        temperatures encouraged mosquitoes, a backlog of diagnostic tests to
        detect malaria was processed and testing standards became more
        stringent. But even with renewed effort, the problem did not go away.

        Records uncovered by entomologist Andrew Spielman hint at why (Mosquito,
        p. 177). For years, Sri Lanka had run test programs to verify DDT’s
        effectiveness at killing mosquitoes. But halfway through the program,
        their standards were dramatically lowered. “Though the reason was not
        recorded,” Spielman writes, “it was obvious that some mosquitoes were
        developing resistance and the change was made to justify continued

        But further spraying led only to further resistance, and the problem
        became much harder to control. DDT use was scaled back and other
        pesticides were introduced—more cautiously this time—but the epidemic
        was never again brought under control, with the deadly legacy that
        continues to this day.

        Instead of apologizing, the chemical companies went on the attack.
        They funded front groups and think tanks to claim the epidemic started
        because countries “stopped” using their products. In their version of
        the story, environmentalists forced Africans to stop using DDT, causing
        the increase in malaria. “It’s like a hit-and-run driver who, instead of
        admitting responsibility for the accident, frames the person who tried
        to prevent the accident,” complains Tim Lambert, whose weblog, Deltoid, tracks the DDT myth and other scientific misinformation in the media.

        Front and center

        Perhaps the most vocal group spreading this story is Africa Fighting
        Malaria (AFM). Founded in 2000 by Roger Bate, an economist at various
        right-wing think tanks, AFM has run a major PR campaign to push the
        pro-DDT story, publishing scores of op-eds and appearing in dozens of
        articles each year. Bate and his partner Richard Tren even published a
        book laying out their alternate history of DDT: When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story.

        A funding pitch uncovered by blogger Eli Rabbett shows Bate’s
        thinking when he first started the project. “The environmental movement
        has been successful in most of its campaigns as it has been ‘politically
        correct,’” he explained (Tobacco Archives,
        9/98). What the anti-environmental movement needs is something with
        “the correct blend of political correctness ( . . . oppressed blacks)
        and arguments (eco-imperialism [is] undermining their future).” That
        something, Bate proposed, was DDT.

        In an interview, Bate said that his motivation had changed after
        years of working on the issue of malaria. “I think my position has
        mellowed, perhaps with age,” he told Extra!.
        “[I have] gone from being probably historically anti-environmental to
        being very much pro-combating malaria now.” He pointed to the work he’d
        done making sure money to fight malaria was spent properly, including a
        study he co-authored in the respected medical journal the Lancet
        (7/15/06) on dishonest accounting at the World Bank. He insisted that
        he wasn’t simply pro-DDT, but instead was willing to support whatever
        the evidence showed worked. And he flatly denied that AFM had ever
        received money from tobacco, pharmaceutical or chemical companies.

        Still, AFM has very much followed the plan Bate laid out in his
        original funding pitch to corporations: First, create “the intellectual
        arguments to make our case,” then “disseminate these arguments to people
        in [developing countries]” who can make convincing spokespeople, and
        then “promote these arguments . . . in the West.” The penultimate page
        gives another hint that stopping malaria isn’t the primary goal: “Is the
        DDT problem still relevant?” is listed as an “intellectual issue to be
        resolved”—once they got funding. (When asked for comment on this, Bate
        became upset and changed the subject.)

        Bate continues to insist that resistance isn’t much of an issue,
        because its primary effect is to keep mosquitoes away from DDT-covered
        areas altogether. Instead he claims “resistance was a useful device by
        which it was easy to pull the plug” on an anti-malaria campaign that was
        failing because of administrative incompetence. “You’re not likely to
        see an aid agency [admit this],” he said when asked for evidence. “I’m
        not sure what you want me to say. If you read enough of the literature,
        you get that strong impression.” But few experts aside from those
        affiliated with AFM seem to have gotten the same impression.

        DDT’s dangers

        These myths can have serious consequences. For one thing, despite
        what is claimed by the right, DDT itself is quite harmful. Studies have
        suggested that prenatal exposure to DDT leads to significant decreases
        in mental and physical functioning among young children, with the
        problems becoming more severe when the exposure is more serious (American Journal of Epidemiology, 9/12/06; Pediatrics, 7/1/06), while the EPA classifies it as a probable human carcinogen.

        For another, resistance is deadly. Not only has DDT’s overuse made it
        ineffective, but, as noted, it has led mosquitoes to evolve
        “cross-resistance”: resistance not only to DDT but also to other
        insecticides, including those with less dangerous environmental effects.

        And perhaps most importantly, the pro-DDT line is a vast distraction.
        There are numerous other techniques for dealing with malaria:
        alternative insecticides, bed nets and a combination of drugs called
        artemisinin-based combination therapy, or ACT. ACT actually kills the
        malaria parasite fast, allowing the patient a quick recovery, and has a
        success rate of 95 percent (World Health Organization, 2001). Rollouts
        of ACT in other countries have slashed malaria rates by 80 to 97 percent
        (Washington Monthly, 7/06).

        But such techniques require money and wealthy nations are hesitant to
        give it, especially when they think they can just avoid the whole
        problem by unbanning DDT. “DDT has become a fetish,” says Allan
        Schapira, a former senior member of the malaria team at the World Health
        Organization (Washington Monthly,
        7/06). “You have people advocating DDT as if it’s the only insecticide
        that works against malaria, as if DDT would solve all problems, which is
        obviously absolutely unrealistic.”

        As a result, senators and their staff insist that DDT is all that’s
        necessary. And the new director of WHO’s malaria program, Arata Kochi,
        kicked off his tenure by telling the malaria team that they were
        “stupid” and issuing an announcement that “forcefully endorsed wider use
        of the insecticide DDT” while a representative of the Bush
        administration stood by his side. Half his staff resigned in response (New York Times, 9/16/06).

        There are genuine issues with current malaria control programs:
        incompetent administration, misuse of funds, outdated techniques, a lack
        of funding and concern. And, much to their credit, many on the right
        have drawn attention to these problems. Africa Fighting Malaria has
        frequently called for more effective monitoring, and conservative Sen.
        Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) has used his influence to fight corruption in
        anti-malaria programs.

        But the same Tom Coburn recently held up a bill honoring the 100th
        anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth on the grounds that “millions of
        people . . . died because governments bought into Carson’s junk science
        claims about DDT” (Raw Story,
        5/22/07). Even AFM’s Bate was quoted as finding this a bit too much,
        pointing out that Carson died in 1964, just two years after Silent Spring was published (Washington Post, 5/23/07). But apparently getting a few digs in at the environmental movement is just too hard for conservatives to resist.

        • Servo1969

          I thought you said the previous comment would be your last comment here.

          • A Z

            Their favorite place to post is Truthout. They post very heavily for an article and then post nothing for long periods of time. I take it they are very busy and so don’t usually post until their frustration level explodes and then you see a plethora of posts for 1 day followed by a drought.

            I think you might like this person if you talked to them more on a a range of issues. But right now they are not making any friends.

          • A Z

            I found this in elitists comments from a year ago

            “I used to be a progressive.
            Now I am SANE.”

            He needs to to tweak his style a little.

        • cxt

          See, this is what I mean, you post this huge “cut and past” section but you seemingly didn’t actually read it.
          Like most of what the Left does it “looks” good but when you take the time to break it down it is much less convincing.
          Very little of it actually states that DDT was ineffective–just that it BECAME less so over the years…….which could have been because we didn’t use enough of it. Just like antibiotics—you don’t use a large enough dose then the remaining bacteria get tougher….so to speak.
          There is nothing/very little that suggests that the loss of human life do to its being banned is that far off…..or even wrong.
          The quoted passages refer to “studies” that are largely un- attributed so I have no way to determine their accuracy. They are also not quoted in context so I don’t know the parameters used nor if the authors are “cherry picking” the data.
          I could go on.

        • bigjulie

          DAMN!! I thought you were leaving??

      • BagLady

        Matters not. The facts are irrefutable.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Humans are part of the biodiversity of the planet. We’re not outside it. And if we didn’t exist, species would continue going extinct, wiping each other out, and adapting to a changing environment.

      Family planning should be a personal decision. It should not be an elitist agenda for eliminating children for the sake of a rodent that some childless biologists have suddenly found deeply appealing and that is the normal course of events will go extinct anyway.

      This is not a critique of family planning. It’s a critique of global population controls and the environmentalist movement.


      It’s not the job of the government to decide when human population levels are “too high,” nor is climate change “settled science”. Even if human activity is causing warming, which is highly doubtful, it’s still better than giving the government the economy-crushing power it craves.

      When the government is empowered to decide there are “too many people” and therefore measures such as forced abortions and sterilizations are necessary (which is where you view leads eventually), we will be living in Communist China – except that life won’t be worth living any more.

      By the way, the population in the U.S. and Western Europe isn’t even growing any more except for immigration. So if you’re really worried about population growth, you should be in favor of closing the borders, but I doubt very much that you are – too many new Democratic voters to pass by, eh?

    • bigjulie

      With the extinction of some 96% of all life that has ever appeared on this planet since life began, I’d have to conclude that we have already lived through “a period of cataclysmic loss of biodiversity”.

    • swemson

      There are a lot of people like Edward O Wilson, who allegedly have big brains, whose heads are so far up their own butts that they haven’t seen sunlight in decades…

      Anyone who truly believes that “exponential human population growth, triggers drastic climate change” is truly an idiot not capable of critical thought. The very idea is absurd. Climate change is caused by changing cycles of solar activity. Any effect that mankind has on climate change is statistically insignificant and typically local.


    • tagalog

      How many species have gone extinct in, say, the past 1,000 years, or whatever period of time Mr. Wilson thinks applies to this unprecedented “cataclysmic loss of diversity?”

      How many new species have been discovered in the same period of time?

      Won’t new species form due to evolution as other species go extinct?

      What is it about family planning/eugenics that fosters biodiversity? I tend to think that not reproducing tends to foster DECREASED biodiversity.

      But that’s just me.

    • kendrick1



      327,000 abortions

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    Sometimes I wish environmentalists would satisfy their bloodlust the way that Che Guevara did, by personally shooting people. They would do so much less damage. Instead, they have dreams of killing more people than the communists did in the 20th century.
    Che’s evil is hardly believable. But the evil of the environmentalists is utterly inexplicable — worse by orders of magnitude. One cannot stare into the face of it, and not recoil with horror, like Victor Frankl, Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, or Verlaine, into a search for meaning.

    • Larry Larkin

      They are already right up their with the communist death toll, with over 120 million children dead of malaria since the ban on aerial spraying of DDT. And the number rises every year.

      • elitist

        Old lies die hard….

        “DDT use has decreased enormously, but not because of a ban. The real
        reason is simple, although not one conservatives are particularly fond
        of: evolution. Mosquito populations rapidly develop resistance to DDT,
        creating enzymes to detoxify it, modifying their nervous systems to
        avoid its effects..”

        Rachel Carson remains a great American, and efforts to slander her as “worse than Hitler” will continue to fail.

        Educate yourself, epople, learn to read, to think.

        Ps. DDT was NEVER baned in most parts of the worls – certainly not in most African nations.

        Who benefits when these kind of lies are propagated??

        • Servo1969

          Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.
          Keep fighting the good fight.

        • Larry Larkin

          Note I said aerial spraying. It was aerial spraying that was doing the job.

        • BagLady

          You are right. The mosquito is so basic, its sole raison d’etre is to survive and procreate. It takes about 2 generations for them to mutate and become immune to our poisons. I have said it many times before; small fish dropped in standing water at the end of the rainy season clean up the larvae with amazing efficiency.

          • cxt

            So why would the millions of people watching their kids die from malaria not figure that out?????
            Are you just claiming to be smarter than millions of other people or is just possible that the situation is more complex than just dropping small fish into standing water?

          • BagLady

            There are many many things that illiterate people watching their kids do not figure out. Malaria and dengue have always been in their lives and I expect they’d eat the little fish before they’d swallowed the larvae. Pigs carry the most lethal form and yet they still keep them under their stilted houses. How come they haven’t figured it out? A family of five on a motor bike with a driver who knows nothing of logical road rules. When he hits something and the baby shoots fifty yards down the road, does he stop overloading his bike? He can’t afford a car and sees no other choice.

            A complex situation is the sum of many simple situations which have simple solutions.

          • Bongstar420

            Religion, spirituality and tradition. It is the kind of thinking which keeps solutions at bay.

          • Bongstar420

            Maybe those people can solve their problems on their own. Are they paying for the spray- I’d think not.

          • tagalog

            Of course, there’s always the old method of placing oil slicks on the waters where the mosquitos breed to cause the larvae to die from lack of air. It takes hardly any oil and works fine. The environmentalists would never sit still for that, though.

          • Bongstar420

            It isn’t like vegetable oils aren’t readily available or anything like that.

            The environmentalists can use organic vegetable oil like it matters if they want to.

          • tagalog

            I always enjoy listening to the environmentalist lament over the loss of wilderness.

            If we let the wild country go back into real wilderness, the mosquitoes would come back along with the ticks, chiggers, no-see-‘ems, and other insects in numbers so dense they fly in black clouds. And of course the elimination of trails in the wild country would eliminate any opportunity other than bushwhacking to hike through that mosquito-infested, swampy, malarial environment, assuming the environmentalists would want to do that with things back to their old status.

          • Bongstar420

            We have a species of fish in the west coast called “Mosquito Fish.”

            I use a species of bacteria to control Fungus Gnats that is quite lethal to Mosquito’s.

            Both of those things do not lend them selves to natural monopolies. Maybe we should consider that

        • cxt

          Are you sure “never banned” isn’t a distinction without a difference?
          Have you looked at production and use figures for DDT after it was banned in the USA and other parts of the world?
          Whom developed and produced DDT?
          Whom produced DDT AFTER it was banned in the USA? And in what amounts?
          If production and use went way down after the USA banned it then technically you might be correct but essentially wrong.
          As in “I didn’t cheat on my wife, we have a open marriage” kinda thing.
          You might well be right–but without checking it out YOU might be the one “propagating…..lies” ;)

        • Paul of Alexandria

          Here’s a good article:
          The point is that like any other technique, DDT should be one tool in an arsenal. Of course mosquitoes develop resistance to any pesticide – if it’s used long enough. So you use them properly, cycling them to avoid resistance development.

          One of the most prevalent problems with Progressives is that they almost always see things in either-or extremes, never in proper proportion.

          Some other good articles:

          • A Z

            “cycling them to avoid resistance development.”


          • BagLady

            These products must be developed and sold in quantities over a very long time to make the desired returns on investment.

            Of course you are right, but in poor countries there’s Diarrhea, Malaria and Aids. Oh and dental extractions for a dollar (no pain killer) of course.

            One growing problem is the increase in fake drugs swamping the countries most affected by malaria. These do nothing but build up a resistance to the genuine article. If only drug companies would make their products more affordable. (Does that make me left wing; wishing to reduce the shareholder’s profit in favour of saving lives?).

            They should let go of their grip on vital drugs much sooner and leave poor markets to the generic manufacturers.

          • Bongstar420

            Would it be left wing to buy those companies and simply instruct them to do what their new owners say?

          • plusaf

            I refer to that as ‘catastrophization’ of an issue, and I believe the mass media of the past several score years deserve a lot of the blame… plus the electorate, which seemed to have abandoned STEM knowledge after the early 1970s.
            Woof Blister has no business ALWAYS being in a ‘Situation Room.’ Very few ‘situations’ deserve that kind of attention.

          • Bongstar420

            We certainly can’t blame morons for being morons

        • NJK

          I think you can encourage people to learn to read when you learn to spell. Environmentalists are watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Whatever happened to “Acid Rain?” Remember that?

        • Schmitty

          Rachel Carson herself reaped the benefit of the hysteria she whipped up. You are correct DDT was not banned in most of the world. The USA banning it was enough to encourage others to stop using it. All these years later none of her hype has come to pass. Just like global warming, or deforestation. The Ozone is another example. Has any tree hugger prediction ever come true?

          • Frank Ch. Eigler

            Yeah, some native indians cried by the roadside.

      • BagLady

        Not in Indian cities though. When those wagons come through the city pumping DDT through huge hosepipes, it is wise to run for cover.

        Bill Gates is an idiot and should stick to his computer. He decided that to cover babies with mosquito nets impregnated with fly spray was a great way to combat malaria.

        B***t of course and no telling what effect those chemicals are having on those little lungs. No wonder the Africans don’t trust us.

        • cxt

          They don’t “trust us” because of people like yourself that sit in their AC equipped homes, with easy access to whatever healthcare you wish and decide what is best for OTHER people.
          In terms of whom is an “idiot”—you present me with a interesting choice. Bill Gates with unlimited amounts of research funds to figure stuff out or an anonymous poster on the net.
          Hmmmm……what to do……what to do…….yeah I’m going with Bill Gates. ;)
          I would also suggest that if you had to watch your children die of malaria you would welcome anything that might help.
          I’m curious though—given your concern for the welfare of “little lungs” what is your view on abortion?

          • swemson

            Bill Gates however is indeed a progressive, a globalist, and a believer in the objectives of Agenda 21. Just because he’s very smart in certain areas, doesn’t mean that he’s not a total moron in others…


          • cxt

            You are right—however I was given the choice between a guy with unlimited research budgets and BagLady–an anonymous poster on the net.
            In this case I’m going with Gates. :)

          • BagLady

            The main difference cxt is that I have no agenda. You are free to find all on the subject right here on the web and decide for yourself.

            Of course he’d love to rid the world of mosquitoes but I question his methods and choice of bed-fellows

          • Bongstar420

            I seriously doubt Bill Gates supports an agenda that selects for believers over actual intelligent people.

          • BagLady

            You do know what has happened with Bill’s malaria experiment, don’t you? The mosquitoes took a few samples of his mate’s chemicals glued to his other mate’s mosie nets, sent it to the genes for processing and, needless to say, became immune within a few mosquito generations. The children, however, lost their own immunity to mosquitoes under those nets and the death rate shot up.

          • Bongstar420

            So pesticides are a huge threat to human health but not so much to the pests they are meant to kill. Or am I missing something?

        • CowboyUp

          The kids in Homestead used to run along behind the DDT trucks when they came through their neighborhood, and they’re still healthy and normal. The thing that made DDT a “wonder pesticide,” was that it was so much safer for more complex life forms than other pesticides.

          • Bongstar420

            Not for their gametes

    • BagLady

      “Che’s evil?”

      Loved the movie.

      • A Z

        I liked your comments on Bill gates and small fish.

        You not being able to see Che as an evil person is scary.

        • Drakken

          She is a Brit communist who openly sides with any 3rd world cause.

          • A Z

            “Che’s evil?”

            Her comment is meant to get a rise out of posters here or she is just really so far gone.

          • BagLady

            Like I said, I’m off to research — briefly — the heinous deeds allegedly done by this man.

            I have to say, it seems very out of character for an humanitarian and it was a rather ‘politically charged’ era when Communism was either on the doorstep, if you were a politician, or a million miles away if you were your average indoctrinated American Dream boy.

            Let us share the load. I shall search for proof that the dastardly act in the stadium was committed by Guevara. Perhaps you could do the same to back up your horror at my ignorance.

          • Notalibfool

            She is a wealthy, over-privileged hypocrite feeding off of the very third-worlders she claims to care about.

        • tagalog

          No, no, you don’t get it; Che was a true democrat by leftist lights. When he was Castro’s trigger man, he instituted the practice of filling a baseball stadium with people, then taking the accused criminals down to the stadium, displaying them to the people, and asking the crowd, “Life or death?” The crowd would shout its choice, and things would go forward as ordained by the people. Democracy in action.

      • truebearing

        Your attempt at humor is telling. The Left’s indifference to evil is precisely why they have committed so much evil. The murdering of innocent people isn’t particulary funny to people who are psychologically and spiritually healthy.

        • BagLady

          The difference between us is that Britain did not undergo the indoctrination of the mid 20th century that you did in the US. Your American Dreamers were instilling fear of the left while creating your silly credit bubble to give the plebs a false feel-good factor. Anyone criticizing the Right was immediately labelled “Commie” and ostracized in case they upset the flow of wealth and power to the faux capitalists.

          Well they’ve got it all now, thanks to you

          • tagalog

            In the mid-20th Century, the Brits became so socialist that you couldn’t get workers to produce anything because the unions had commerce bottled up, and had the politicians spoon-feeding with that “working class good, leaders bad” Orwellian nonsense.

            As a result, Great Britain continued its wartime food rationing until 1955. They had queues and food lines while Americans were buying Davy Crockett caps, new cars every two years, and hula hoops.

            The Brits had their own indoctrination. It consisted of “Get used to being poor.” If you don’t think so, read the genre of literature created by the Angry Young Men, and the multitude of British films made during that time and shortly thereafter.

          • BagLady

            You are right, of course. The pendulum, once set in motion, swung from far right to far left, as pendulums are wont to do. But it settled down. There was no need for Margaret Thatcher’s destruction of the industrial sector.

            Britain was always 10 years behind the US in ‘quality of life’ terms; you got your fridge/freezers, air-con units, second homes all on that innovative bit of banking plastic.

            In the mid 20th Century any English woman (with the permission of her husband) buying a washing machine on ‘tick’ would be labelled in the community as “no better than she aught to be” and shunned.

            (Not that she gave a monkeys).

          • tagalog

            You’re about 10 years too early on the rise of consumer credit in the U.S. People didn’t buy those appliances you mention on credit cards in the early to mid-950s because they didn’t have credit cards. In the U.S., they DID buy things on layaway, borrowing from our British cousins, who instituted that practice. As you undoubtedly know, if you buy on layaway, you don’t get the product until it’s paid for, so there’s little room for the ridicule of your neighbors.

          • BagLady

            Thank you for the details. Granted, I am out a few years and with the actual nitty-gritty tools but the ‘bubble’ did begin there and in that era.

            I recall a British TV program on ‘tick’ in the US that began with a man dropping his plastic card holder for the camera and ten credit cards appeared. The English were horrified. It was only acceptable to buy a house on borrowed money with a mortgage from an extremely respectable local bank, all else was extravagance.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They admire Che, but are too cowardly to do the whole armed revolution thing. They would rather be little Eichmanns instead.

    • truebearing

      You mention Baudelaire. He once wrote: “The finest ruse of the devil is to convince you he doesn’t exist.” The environmental cult’s finest ruse is to convince us that they are trying to save us. What they are really doing is setting up unprecedented “natural” die-offs by creating situations that lead to starvation, drought, fatal exposure to cold or heat, etc. The are setting up “natural negative eugenics.” Since they see humans as the enemy of nature, they plan to enable nature’s revenge. Large numbers of people will die of “natural causes” and they think they won’t be held responsible. It’s the “Gaia was angry” ruse.

      Everything the environmental Left does or says is messianic in appearance, but misanthropic in intent. This is the same contradiction as the Left arguing that man isn’t inherently evil, while basing its political survival on cultivating envy, revenge, and hate in its followers. As usual, the Left is lying, but when it comes to environmentalism, the lie is pretending to save mankind while plotting to destroy humanity. A lie can’t get much more ominous.

      The occult environmental Orwellianism: “We must kill humans beings to save the human race.”

      Charles Baudelaire also once wrote that “the greatest sin is ignorance.” People would do well by listening to prophets like Daniel Greenfield. Ignoring the intent of environmentalism as an existential threat to humanity is a grave mistake.

      • truebearing

        Brilliant article, Daniel.

    • NJK

      I wish someone would shoot them, or they’d shoot themselves.

    • Bongstar420

      These same people think colonizing lifeless rocks in space would be wrong.

      How ethically asinine is that!

  • American1969

    According to the fanatical environmentalists, this planet should be a burned out cinder by now, and we should all be eating Soylent Green.
    These hysterical projections and doomsday scenarios have been around forever, and they never pan out—–except when human beings attempt to “make things better” and “save the planet” with their inept and incompetent gestures that do nothing but waste money and accomplish nothing except to make things worse.
    Don’t believe it? Take a good look at California’s man-made drought over a bait fish that isn’t even native to the state! Ranchers and farmers are losing their livelihoods because of the actions and demands of the environmental movement. No new dams, storage, or desalinization plants because of environmental activists.
    California has always had drought cycles, but what the eviro-freaks are doing is making a bad situation worse, majorly affecting people’ lives and livelihoods, and it doesn’t matter to them. People aren’t important.
    Regressive Leftists have no respect for human life—–except their own.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They’re self-fulfilling prophecies that they try to fulfill

      • American1969

        Exactly! Spot on!

    • tagalog

      The popular science pundit Michio Kaku recently said that the Arctic is getting warmer and warmer, approaching a point where the heating will be irreversible. This evidently is going to happen fairly soon. If Mr. Kaku is correct, the irreversible heating will turn the Earth into a fireball. After all, irreversible means IRREVERSIBLE, doesn’t it?

  • DogmaelJones1

    Love the “duck whisperer” analogy. I can picture Robert Redford, now in his senile dotage, petting a duck, and whispering sweet nothings in its ear. However, this is one of the very few columns to reach the logical and so obvious conclusion that the endgame of the environmentalists is the end of man himself. That’s the dirty little secret behind all the measures cited in the article, and also behind every little “these napkins made from recycled materials” and the like one sees on product packaging now. This column should be turned into a pamphlet and distributed far and wide. Great work, Daniel.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Guilt -> profit –> extinction

      • DogmaelJones1

        Did you take a look at the links provided by “Elitist”?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Strawman argument about a global DDT ban

      • Flowerknife_us

        Invest in Funeral Homes.
        At least until the Government has to Nationalize it.

    • swemson

      But how to we convince the masses of the truth behind what’s going on here?

      Frequently, when I tell anyone that the true objective of Agenda 21 is the elimination of roughly 6 billion people (over 90% of the world’s population) they look at me like I’m delusional.

      Their entire house of cards would collapse if we can find a way to expose the one central lie upon which their entire phony enterprise is built.

      CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

      I’ve found this one simple 2 minute time lapse video to be a very effective way to sow doubt in the mind of many of the “useful idiots” who have bought into this absurd hoax.


      • nightspore

        They will catch on eventually because these people are so OTT. Happily, I think the main problem is complacent trust and not that they share the chief attribute of the Left, which is a total lack of common sense.

      • bigjulie

        swemson…this presentation was EXCELLENT!! Thank you for providing it.

    • CaoMoo

      I once had a debate with an environmentalist who said mankind was a virus that should be eradicated. I told him to lead the way and jump out the third story window of the class we were currently in. He refused. I told him that was the difference between BS and conviction. I’m willing to die for my beliefs because I hold them to be true. He on the other hand was full of it and wanted nothing more than to be a self righteous condescending narcissist who could look down on others and claim he was better than them. I offered him a second chance to put his money where his mouth is and he just went to his seat and never spoke to me again.

      • DogmaelJones1

        Excellent response to the man-hater. Worthy of a Harry Callahan, “Make my day” scene. My hat is off to you.

      • Vivek

        LOL that is exactly what I tell animal people to do. Migrate to the nearest jungle or forest and render the greatest service to the four legged that they could by ending up as breakfast, lunch or dinner of some hungry predators. It would also give them the opportunity to be reincarnated as their favourite animal- dog, cat, bat whatever.

        • Bongstar420


          Of course, they don’t get it though

      • Joseph Lenard

        Exactly right… If you morons think human-kind is killing the Planet, then 1) why are you breeding more humans yourself? and 2) if you believed your own BS you’d start by offing yourself!
        Complete self righteous condescending narcissists like you stated!
        Al Gore doesn’t believe his BS…. If he were truly “concerned” about rising tides he wouldn’t have bought Ocean-front property! Where are his Solar-panels and Windmills at his properties! Is he driving an Electric car, LMFAO NO! Ed Bagley Jr is the only one that attempts to walk-the-walk of what he preaches, so I have (at least) a shred of respect for him – he’s still full of crap and spewing nonsense, but he lives it.

  • MJMotley


    • BagLady

      Not germane to the point but interesting all the same. Do go on….

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They are indeed Aleuts, but many refer to them as Eskimos, even though it’s inaccurate, and it avoids having to explain further in an already long article.

      • Sniper’s Oath

        I have been in AK most of my life and my daughter is part Aleut. What matters for me is that King Cove have had two emergencies since the decision. Both people barely made it out in time.

        • Daniel Greenfield


  • BagLady

    Daniel, darling. They are called jobsworths. It matters not left nor right. It’s the gene pool they are plucked from.

    The frightening thing is the $value they put upon themselves. Back in the mid 20th century they were happy with their solid jobs for life and mediocre salaries with guaranteed OTT pensions and lots of holidays and 2 weeks ‘sick leave’ pa. Now it’s bonuses, gold plated pensions and revolving door part-time ‘consultancies’ for idiots.

    I have little doubt that if these creatures saw a personal, financial advantage in changing sides, they would do so immediately.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Quite a few of them are, the vast ranks of the NGOs and bureaucracies wouldn’t be filled without them, but they are led by many who do believe something

  • Judy Jones

    worshiping the creation instead of the Creator…shameful, just shameful

    • Infidel4Ever

      Well said.

    • Naresh Krishnamoorti

      What is very curious is that people who say they are Darwinian evolutionists, when it comes to justifying the mass murder of humans, will suddenly claim that species extinction is unnatural; and that man should cease to evolve technologically, or indeed should even extinguish himself, in order to preserve species and a concept of biodiversity that exists nowhere except in the mind of the radical Progressive.
      It used to be the Malthusians who tried to scare us into killing people so we’ll have enough food for the survivors. Now, the history of the last few decades has proved that the more the population increases, the more scientists we have, and the more scientists we have, the more collective human ingenuity exists, and the more advanced and efficient our food production becomes: so much so, that the delta of oversupply of food beyond what is required to feed the entire population of the earth has never been higher. Nowadays, it’s hard to argue that we’re running out of food. The existence of hunger is a distribution problem alone.
      So the scions of gehenna now claim we need to kill human beings to promote some artificial concept of biodiversity. As Daniel says, this is a war not against an ethnic group, a race, a religion, or an economic class, but against humanity itself. As such, the environmentalists are far worse than Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

      • truebearing

        “What is very curious is that people who say they are Darwinian evolutionists, when it comes to justifying the mass murder of humans, will suddenly claim that species extinction is unnatural; and that man should cease to evolve technologically, or indeed should even extinguish himself, in order to preserve species and a concept of biodiversity that exists nowhere except in the mind of the radical Progressive.”

        Again, the inherent contradiction of leftist thinking. If man is inherently good, as they claim when attacking Christianity, then why must he be exterminated? Won’t an inherently good species evolve to become even better? Doesn’t inherent goodness anticipate that man will accomodate and preserve nature? Isn’t Progressivism based on that belief? Why yes it is, but apparently they weren’t sincere in that argument to begin with. They despise humankind, and the motivational engine of Leftist power proves it. They don’t appeal to man’s altuism, compassion, foregiveness, or generosity to gain political power, they appeal to man’s tendencies toward envy, revenge, and hate to amass their power. Once acquired, they plot to destroy their own species.

        • CaoMoo

          It’s a story as old as Eden eat this fruit and become like God decide for yourselves what is good or bad. In rejecting God they have declared themselves gods.

          The result of which was quoted later in the bible man has dominated man to his own injury. BUt that’s all fairy tales like the easter bunny and the keebler elves according to them.

  • Infidel4Ever

    The Post-Human Left. Another brilliant phrase by Mr. Greenfield. And one that perfectly describes what the left really is and has been from the beginning. Notice that all their policies wind up costing human lives. Abortion was of course merely the start of it all. And environmentalists mask their anti-human ideals with their phony baloney concern for the animals and the environment. I say if you’re really concerned about over population you should walk the talk and kill yourself. It’s real easy to blather about overpopulation when you’ve already been born.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      but their job is to kill everyone else first

      then they can turn off the last of the lights

      • A Z

        Population Connection is the renamed Zero Population Growth co-founded by Paul R. Ehrlich who lost his Malthusian bet.

        Population Connection is so warm & fuzzy compared to the ominous sounding ZPG. A rebranding was in order. After all Danny Ortega swapped out battle fatigues for a 3 piece suit to look more presentable.

        Population Connection a year ago ran a lot of PSAs on the radio. It took a while to figure who they were. The name sounds good. People connecting with people sounds like a good thing and so long it is done with force or duress it generally is.

        Their mission statement is particularly heinous

        “Overpopulation threatens the quality of life for people everywhere. Population Connection is the national grassroots population organization that educates young people and ADVOCATES PROGRESSIVE ACTION to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth’s resources.”

        I wonder what level of population that is?

        Georgia Guide Stones level?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Much like Population Crisis became Population Action

        • Well Done

          I note the left always refer to their detailed, ground-up, in-the-field indoctrination programs as “grassroots”. Most of the rest of us call them “astroturf”.

      • Infidel4Ever

        Indeed. But who’s going to make their lattes as these “elites” congratulate themselves on a job well done? :-)

        • Well Done

          There will be a servant class, of course, but they will be subject to a fairly low ceiling.

          • tagalog

            No doubt they will be called Morlocks.

      • Sniper’s Oath

        Dr. Anthony Napoleon wrote in “The Progressive Virus” about this very real concept on Eugenics. Sound more like “Skin head” talk everyday. The new terrorism class. Clandestine though.

  • Demetrius Minneapolis

    Who’s the gentleman with Obama?

    • Patriot077

      Looks a lot like Bill Nye’s sister.

    • Well Done

      I would say she looks like a rather heinous, inhuman grim reaper, and I’m not referring to whether or not she’s attractive. One doesn’t reach the level of misogyny she is well paid to inhabit, without a certain measure of disdain for fellow humans

  • Clare Spark

    No real scientist would join the ecology panic. See “Darwin and the climate change debate: the Greens have it.” When I was fund raising in the 1980s for the Yankee Doodle Society, I found that the major liberal foundations were all putting their funds into population control. Greenfield is onto something big here. I believe that there is indeed a eugenics agenda at play in the environmentalist movement.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Yes there’s a huge interconnected web of these foundations, more than there was room for in this article, moving cash into population control. Been going on for a while.

      • 11johnmac66

        These things are true. But I do not think it affected anyone outside the populace of the western world and China though… Some of us took it serious enough and got so particular it has become our loss.

  • Max

    the one line reminded me of the movie and story “the lorax” where one speaks with the “animals, the fish and the trees.” speak to the trees man!

    Great Article to read. Cheers.

  • Horace Yo

    Fuel poverty, overregulation of everything to the point of stopping anything constructive, destructiion of industry, transportation and construction, and thereby Western Civilization by the insane moronic belief that carbon dioxide at 0.03% of our atmosphere is causing the Earth to overheat is a good indication that the truth is loud and clear in Greenfield’s article that the lefties are evil and destructive. Thats what they are up to now and it’s easy to see they are dead wrong. They were wrong about their racist eugenics programs too. (Margaret Sanger et al.)

  • Sniper’s Oath

    Do not really think the people in this country are aware of how bad a move like this is. More and more progressive movements are trying to take mans position of Apex on the world food chain, witch is also biologically natural, down a peg.
    By doing so we actually slow down natural events of nature itself. This can only end badly.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    Your comment was most likely automatically flagged. References to the N-azis tend to do that.

    • A Z

      Which is why some of us have learned to write NSDAP =)

      • Daniel Greenfield

        but not enough people have learned what it means

        • CaoMoo

          National Socialist Dachshund Apparel?

          Seriously though can’t figure out the DAP part.

          • tagalog

            National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which in German is something like Nazional Sozialist Deutsche Arbeiters Partei (please pardon any misspellings, I don’t know German), or NSDAP.

    • Steeloak

      He missed my point completely, which is that well meaning people, who believe their ideas are “Scientific”, “logical”, and “reasonable” can cause the greatest of human disasters if they are able to implement them fully with he force of government. I refer to communism, with it’s excess of 100 million citizens murdered by their own governments, or the Eugenics movement, which reached it’s peak in National Socialist Germany. The same kinds of thinking, and the same kind of rationalizations are evident in much of the modern environmental movement.

  • frodo

    “The post-human left seeks to maintain a state of perpetual crisis so
    that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even
    the most horrifying solutions to avoid the end of mankind. What it does
    not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.”

    Yes, you’ve found them out, I’m sure.

    That’s one of the more absurd things I’ve seen online–which is saying something!
    How on earth do you *know* this (ie, what do you have as proof other than long and dubious chains of inference driven by the agenda of this site)?

    • cxt

      Says the guy that parses out a single paragraph without the context.
      Also you seem to have NO problem with “long and dubious chains of inference driven by the agenda’s” of OTHER posters.

      • frodo

        I’m not sure I see what you’re talking about. Should I have copied the whole chain of illogical overreadings and made a giant comment?

        What other posters are you talking about?

        The statement I quoted isn’t supported by evidence–unless you take evidence to mean “forced overinterpretations.”

        • cxt

          What I’m talking about is that you, yourself make the self-same “errors” you seem so interested in picking on others for making.
          1-You merely claim “illogical” statements–and you use an out of context line as an example.
          Either one is fallacious.
          2-The “other” posters are the ones EVERYONE but you and handful of your fellow travelers are commenting on. How you missed them is the point—willful ignorance on your part.
          If you were honestly concerned with “illogic” then you would also be picking on people like Baglady and Elitist.
          3-“The statement I quoted isn’t supported by evidence”
          A-It is out of context
          B-YOUR statements are not supported by evidence either. So if its ok for you—then its ok for others. ;)
          C-Again, you seem unconcerned with other people making the same mistake.
          So your argument becomes “If I agree with them, then they don’t need proof.”

          • frodo

            The line quoted is an extraordinary claim, the only evidence for which is Greenfield’s interpretation of part of the Obama budget. There needs to be more than that to make apocalyptic claims.

            The fact that I don’t comment on every single post just means that I don’t comment on every single post–not agreement or disagreement.

            The comment you’re talking about is a response to the article, not some other post, so I don’t see how your complaint about “other posters” is relevant.

    • Well Done

      LOL how does the author “know” this? Well, for one thing, the pronouncements of the environmentalist industry are a sure sign. A better question would be, “why do you choose NOT to *know* this?”

      • frodo

        How’s that? What statements suggest that there’s a post-human left seeking the end of humanity? The stuff referred to in the article doesn’t.

        Besides, “post-human” can mean a whole range of things and not all of which make sense and I’m not sure how Greenfield’s using it. Affixing “post-” to anything works as bait, though.

  • Yasha7

    I live in a very fertile area of California’s central coast which doesn’t receive federal water. We rely on our own aquifer which is fed by rainfall and stored in two reservoirs. This season we’ve gotten a little over 5″ of rain, where normal is 15″. I completely agree that environmentalism has greatly reduced the efficient amount of water we have, but California’s drought was/is caused by lack of rain.

    • Well Done

      There is no drought in California. It’s largely desert. In a desert, calling it a drought is like moving to the Antarctic and blaming conditions on a cold snap.

      • Yasha7

        Five inches of rain this year vs. average fifteen inches (in our area) sure sounds like drought to me. I’ve live here for thirty-five years and seen rainy seasons and dry seasons cycle several times. This is the driest I’ve ever seen it. I’m certainly not denying that the environmentalist agenda hasn’t played a huge part in our water woes, but almost no rain = drought.

    • finnigansmom

      I live in California too, and wonder about the effects of all those chemtrails on our weather.

  • hogwild04


  • herb benty

    Canada’s, adored by leftist enviro-loonie crowd, “Dr” David Suzuki, “mankind is a virus”. This is what the elite enviros think of humanity. VS., ” and God made man in His own image, to tend and subdue the Earth”. Evolution is to “environmentalism”, what Mein Kampf was to Nazi’s, what Mao’s little red book was to Communists. Evolution is a huge lie.

    • Zolicon

      ” “mankind is a virus”
      And I am the Cure.

      • herb benty

        An arrogant troll, what a novelty!

        • Zolicon

          That is Lord Arrogant Troll to You.

    • Well Done

      Suzuki and his ilk, are, indeed, a virus.

      • herb benty

        A virus makes us sick, a human version would make civilization sick…..Well Done!

  • Well Done

    Apologists for the criminal bureaucrats who caused the Somerset levels flooding have been blaming local councils for not spending enough money on dredging. This lie covers up the fact that regulations do not ALLOW dredging.

  • 11johnmac66

    Not all environmentalists run or think in the same direction.
    Not all money paid into birth control entails ” stopping babies from being born” aka abortion…the vast sums go into preventing babies from being conceived as contraception’s.( NGOs would be run out of many countries if they were offering abortion services.)
    And I ask you is this not a crucial means of allowing people to escape the poverty trap, especially in poor countries where there is the detrimental habit and practice of very young women/girls getting pregnant.
    Look at some place like Ethiopia that had a population of some 25million back in 1985 along with that famine – and the pop cultures feed the world fund raiser. It has a population today of 75million, still in dire poverty and largely dependent on foreign aid.
    ( I for one think it is quite hopeless sending funds without getting control over cultural practices that perpetuate the poverty trap )

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I think it’s quite hopeless sending funds… period.

      If people can’t run their lives without our help, they won’t be able to run them with our help either

      That’s the failure of the welfare state in a nutshell

  • Guest

    “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water.’” – Barreness Young

    Silly me, I thought the proper was was to join and donate to Ducks Unlimited. It is people voluntarily coming together and pitching in their time and money. You might call it Communitarian. The people of Ducks Unlimited do not call it Communitarian.They just did it.

  • A Z

    “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water.’” – Barreness Young

    Silly me, I thought the proper was was to join and donate to Ducks Unlimited. It is people voluntarily coming together and pitching in their time and money. You might call it Communitarian. The people of Ducks Unlimited do not call it Communitarian.They just did it.

  • Lightbringer

    You wrote:

    “family planning means, as a rule, having a trained
    counselor, hopefully from the local community, sitting down over a cup of tea
    with a mother of two or three children and exploring safe and healthful options
    for avoiding additional pregnancies.”

    Avoiding additional pregnancies? Many women want large families, and have no desire to “avoid additional pregnancies”. Every child they bear is wanted, loved, and cared for, and regarded as a blessing. My next-door neighbor just had her ninth. A friend has twelve. Another friend is one of fourteen. And believe me, they — and their husbands — all wanted every one of those children. What do you recommend be done about them?

    • kendrick1

      They forget that “a woman has a right to do as she wills with her own body” it is said!

      • tagalog

        If a woman has a right to do as she wills with her own body, what is it called when she does as she wills with the body of the baby forming in her womb?

        I know, I know, “abortion.”

        • kendrick1

          Women have been programmed by the to BELIEVE they have a right to do what they want to do with their own body! They don’t! Just let them try to sell one of their kidneys or lungs! Let them try to set up a house of prostitution in a state where it is legal to do so.

          The passage of Roe vs. Wade is part of the progressive agenda of eugenics!
          Go to:

          The Environmentalist Eugenics of the Left

  • discontented

    I wonder why Frontpage is so anti-environmentalist.

    • Vigilant2

      Likely because environmentalists are enemies of mankind.

  • tickletik

    Lets get real man, the truth is Sally Jewell is a racist. All this liberal bs is just a mask to allow them to do what the rich white libs really want, which is to murder the undesirables. They’ve already successfully conned the blacks into wrecking their own community permanently. LOL, they’ve even got those suckers to vote for a bill that will bring in millions of Latinos to displace – whites? no, the Latinos will displace the blacks!

    And here Sally is spouting some well meaning bs about the birds. Yeah, uhuh, as if she’d spout that nonsense if the village was composed of upper crust white libs.

    They’ve also managed to successfully transfer these policies over to the benighted white middle classes, the commoners and peasants. It’s all a scam.

  • hiernonymous

    In what sense are you arguing that PHE is “eugenics?” I didn’t see anything in your article that indicated that the population controls being proposed were targeting a particular population, or were intended to alter the composition of humanity. Is this simply a casual “any birth control = eugenics” use of the term, or are you making an implied argument I didn’t catch in my admittedly casual reading of the piece?

  • Thanh

    “mankind is a virus”

  • edgineer

    They are not environmentalists, they are sociopathic killers.

  • NJK

    How do these psychopaths get away with this? Let’s face it, these are mentally disturbed people who’ve obtained positions of power. Why doesn’t anyone stop them? They should either be eliminated from the earth, or locked up in institutions for the criminally insane.

  • harleyrider1778

    Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

    ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

    Read under the title :
    Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

  • harleyrider1778

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  • tagalog

    PHE is going to go over really well in places like Africa, where the rhinoceros and the elephant are endangered.

    I can just see the local people getting in line for their condoms when the UN troops march in. Or maybe the UN troops will march in and never be heard from again.

    But no doubt Europeans and Americans are sufficiently girly-ized to submit meekly to that kind of thing.

  • American1969

    Where do you think the Nazis got their ideas about eugenics? From people who did it during the Woodrow Wilson Administration.

    • harleyrider1778

      It began because of DARWINS theory of evolution…………and the progressives picked it up and ran with it……..

      • American1969

        Also an excellent point! Thank you.

  • American1969

    Exactly! Excellent and informative post! Not many people are aware that eugenics were happening here and that’s where the Nazis got their ideas—-from what the Wilson Administration was doing.

  • Norman

    Ayn Rand sounded a warning about this way back in the 1960s. Of course, she was much more acquainted with the collectivist – communist mindset than Americans, having experienced the Communist revolution first – hand while living in Russia. I hear that Spotted Owl tastes real good when broiled in olive oil and garlic.

    • tagalog

      And garnished with snail darters.

  • nimbii

    So, an MD prescribes an antibiotic and a PHE lawyer sues for genocide?

  • Steve Bryant

    I think I saw this on an old Twilight Zone episode, “To Serve Man”. Turns out to be a cook book. (vegetarian, of course)