Climate Alarmists Propose That Teachers Execute Skeptical Schoolchildren

Posted on September 29, 2015 by Tony Heller

London climate alarmist group 10:10 has proposed that teachers execute skeptical schoolchildren in the classroom.

ScreenHunter_3317 Sep. 29 09.24

1010

ScreenHunter_3319 Sep. 29 09.27

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Climate Alarmists Propose That Teachers Execute Skeptical Schoolchildren

  1. Jason Calley says:
    September 29, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Ah, Tony, an oldies but a goodie! Seriously, the 10:10 people had announced that they were making some adverts for spreading the “Let’s all stop Climate Change!” meme, but when I fist saw their video I was puzzled. “This can’t be real! this has to be some satire that was made to poke fun at the 10:10 group. I mean, NO ONE would be so clueless that they would think this is a good way to convince people to support their group. Murdering children? I am supposed to rush out and join a group that uses child murder as a selling point?!”

    When I realized that no, they really were that clueless — not to mention that unethical, that cold-hearted, that un-empathetic — I just shook my head in amazement. Later, watching several other ads from the CAGW crowd I noticed that killing children seemed to be a theme that recurred more than once.

    Reply
    • Steve Case says:
      September 29, 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Well said, I too thought it was from some right wing stealth organization trying to make ’em look stupid. I still wonder if that’s the case.

      Reply
      • Jason Calley says:
        September 29, 2015 at 4:23 pm

        Oh, they admitted that they had made the video and sort of apologized, saying (in essence and paraphrased) that they had not realized that so many people did not possess a sophisticated sense of humor.

        Reply
    • gator69 says:
      September 29, 2015 at 7:54 pm

      Later, watching several other ads from the CAGW crowd I noticed that killing children seemed to be a theme that recurred more than once.

      It is not just the AGW crowd, it is leftists in general. Get your baby brains while they are still synapsing!

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        September 29, 2015 at 8:23 pm

        After-Birth Abortions: College Students Increasingly Support Infanticide

        …. according to Thomas Aquinas student, Mairead Mcardle, more college students are supporting post-birth abortion.

        She writes in The College Fix, “Anecdotal evidence by leaders of pro-life groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”

        She cites the testimony of Mark Harrington, the director of Created Equal. Harrington said, “We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit. While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”

        He continues, “This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage—it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans,” Harrington said. “[I] talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age.”….

        The Fabian Socialist have been pro-eugenics from day one.

        This is Hilary Clinton’s Heroine: MARGARET SANGER: FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND HEROINE OF THE SECULAR HUMANISTS

        “Margaret’s English exile gave her the opportunity to make some critical interpersonal connections as well. Her bed became a veritable meeting place for the Fabian upper crust: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire. And of course, it was then that she began her unusual and tempestuous affair with Havelock Ellis. Ellis was the iconoclastic grandfather of the Bohemian sexual revolution…he had provided the free love movement with much of its intellectual apologia.” …

        Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists. Chief among them was Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.”…

        “Another Sanger colleague was Yale economics professor Irving Fisher, a leader of the Eugenics Research Association.” …

        “Among the leading psychiatrists at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry was Ernst Rudin, who headed the genealogical and demographic department. Rudin would soon become director of the institute. Later, he would become an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.”

        “Sanger’s magazine and the immediate predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Review-regularly and openly published the racist articles of the Malthusian Eugenicists. In 1920, it published a favorable review of Lothrop Stoddard’s frightening book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. In 1923, the Review editorialized in favor of restricting immigration on a racial basis. In 1932, it outlined Sanger’s ‘Plan for Peace,’ calling for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilative concentration camps for all ‘dysgenic stocks.’ In 1933, the Review published ‘Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need’ by Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. And later that same year, it published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, ‘Selective Sterilization,’ which adamantly praised and defended the Third Reich’s racial programs.”…..

        Betting with lives: Clarence Gamble and the Pathfinder International

        One of the most militant, well funded, and pervasive organizations promoting population control throughout the world — especially in underdeveloped nations — has been Pathfinder International, formerly known as the Pathfinder Fund prior to a 1991 name change.

        Founded in 1957 by the wealthy eugenicist and population control advocate Clarence Gamble, heir to part of the Gamble fortune from the Proctor and Gamble soap company billions, Pathfinder was one of the very first organizations to fund overseas population control programs. (Clarence Gamble himself was “the first American” individual to fund such activities.)….

        Gamble began friendships with pro-contraceptionist Dr. Robert Dickinson and Mrs. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League, the parent of today’s Planned Parenthood Federation of America.4 Gamble’s son Richard, who was president of Pathfinder in the 1970s, traced his father’s interest in population control back to 1924….

        From 1923 to 1938, Gamble taught pharmacology and did research at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School.… In 1933, Gamble was elected president of the Pennsylvania Birth Control Federation, a state affiliate of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League. From that position, Gamble advanced to become a member of the League’s board of directors.

        In December 1937, Gamble was appointed “Medical Field Director” of Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau and at the same time became a member of the editorial advisory board of the Bureau’s Journal of Contraception,8 a propaganda vehicle for Sanger’s birth control and eugenics agenda…

        Gamble approached the North Carolina State Board of Health with an offer it found too good to refuse: he would personally fund for one year a project to provide contraception, under state auspices, to indigent citizens, paying for both the contraceptives and the salary of a “consultant nurse.” Miss Pratt. Miss Pratt thus made her way back to North Carolina and Gamble had the entire state as a laboratory in which to test his ideas….

        The overtly racist and eugenic nature of the project was well revealed in an oft-told anecdote about a local “health officer [who] didn’t think his county needed contraception. He was asked to check his vital statistics. When he discovered that the Negroes were accounting for 85 per cent of the births he quickly changed his mind.”

        The “negro project”

        In 1939, Margaret Sanger’s new Birth Control Federation of America, a merger of her American Birth Control League and her research arm, the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, designed a “Negro Project” which sought to bring about a major birth-rate reduction among American Negroes. Such a result, according to the goals of the project, would help solve the problem of Southern Negro poverty. According to the project proposal, widely believed to have been written by Gamble, “The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the [population] increase among Negroes…is from that portion…least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.”

        The project was to hire three or four “colored Ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to travel through the South and propagandize for birth control. As the project proposal stated, “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.”19

        In a remarkably frank letter to Gamble, Sanger wrote that “We do not want Word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”…

        Too bad the blacks are unaware that Hitlery’s heroine wanted to ‘ exterminate the Negro population’ I do not think that hidden goal has disappeared either.

        Reply
  2. Andy DC says:
    September 29, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    It is hard to conceive that anyone could be light hearted about the subject of killing children. Especially these hard core fanatics, that tend to be a pretty humorless bunch.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      September 29, 2015 at 8:33 pm

      Andy,
      This has been the hidden goal of PETA* from dau one. To demote humans to the status of animal/cattle/chattel.

      *People Eating Tasty Animals is my preferred group with those initials.

      Reply
      • Morgan Wright says:
        September 29, 2015 at 9:31 pm

        PETA thinks unborn children are lower than animals, and, ironically, unborn animals.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          September 29, 2015 at 9:55 pm

          I was being nice.

          Actually given the number of dogs and cats PETA kills a year, they are none too fond of animals either.
          PETA has killed more than 33,000 animals since 1998. 97.3%. of animals under PETA’s care have been killed in one year.

          PETA even goes so far as talking owners into giving them their animals or OUTRIGHT STEALING THEM so they can kill them!

          http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Maya-2.jpg

          PETA has finally spoken out on the stealing and killing of Maya. They not only claim they are “devastated,” but they claim it was all a mistake.

          …The family of Maya, the little dog PETA stole and then killed, identified the woman caught on tape as the very same woman who had sat with the family on their porch in the past and talked to them about Maya’s care. To say that she killed Maya thinking that Maya was a different dog as PETA is now claiming not only strains credulity to the point of breaking, it begs another question. Why would PETA kill any healthy dog, no matter where he or she came from and do so the very day they took her in despite a law requiring she be held for at least five?

          If anything, PETA’s admission that Maya was killed “by accident” proves that, in fact, PETA employees are in the habit of killing healthy animals, as both the statistics they report to the State of Virginia reveal, as well as their own statements in the past stating that they “absolutely” kill healthy animals.

          It should not have mattered where Maya came from or whom she belonged to. Neither would justify her killing nor change the fact that an animal with nothing wrong with her ended up dead at the hands of PETA employees. PETA killed a perfectly healthy animal on the very same day she was taken by them, a fact they do not dispute. If PETA employees were not in the habit of killing healthy animals, how on earth could such a “mistake” have been made?

          In fact, what happened to Maya is entirely consistent with reports from former PETA employees who state that PETA routinely kills healthy animals, including litters of puppies and kittens, without ever trying to find them homes. One such employee recently admitted that when she worked at and killed for PETA, she was encouraged to lie to people in order to get them to surrender their animals to her so she could kill them. She stated that such behavior was encouraged by PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, stating, “It was what she told us to do—it was standard operating procedure.” She also stated that when PETA claims that the only animals they kill are those who are mortally suffering, they are lying, saying that, “Contrary to what PETA maintains, the majority of animals it takes in are not beyond hope, in my experience many would be considered highly adoptable by a shelter, the ‘better off dead’ line is one that is dragged out in order to excuse what they do—and it’s a lie.”…..

          http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Dead-Cats_0001.jpg

  3. Michael 2 says:
    September 29, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    It is just a facet of the Malthusian jewel.

    Reply
  4. Colorado Wellington says:
    September 29, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Dear children, would you be kind enough to justify your existence?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

    Reply
  5. wesleyramsay says:
    September 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Does anyone, anywhere actually believe these vignettes to be humorous?

    Reply
  6. Gail Combs says:
    September 29, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    It all depends on whether your view point is that the individual should serve the State or whether the State is there to protect the rights of the individual. It really is that simple.

    If you believe the State should be served by the individual you have Sparta:

    Ancient Spartan Communism

    “..Plutarch’s description is of interest because, waiving the question of its historical accuracy, it gives a very adequate definition of the ideal communistic state, as ideally imagined by countless later generations. In general, he says,

    …he trained his fellow-citizens to have neither the wish nor the ability to live for themselves; but like bees they were to make themselves always integral parts of the whole community, clustering together about their leader, almost beside themselves with enthusiasm and noble ambition, and to belong wholly to their country.

    …the Spartan state was probably unique in some respects in the record of political institutions. It is difficult to recall any other state in which the individual was so completely subordinated to the general ends of the community — and such subordination is, of course, of the very essence of socialism in its general sense, as distinguished from that species of socialism generally referred to as communism. From the day of his birth, when he might be not merely subordinated but suppressed for the good of the state, the young Spartan continued to be disposed of in one way or another until death opened up for him a way of escape. The common education, which began at the age of seven, was wholly designed to make good soldiers, to teach men to suffer uncomplainingly the extremes of heat and of cold, of hunger and of pain, and in each was implanted the conviction that he belonged not to himself, but to the state.

    This attitude toward fellow humans is the government leaders treating citizens as nothing more than cattle (chattel). The same attitude is reiterated centuries later by Fabian Co-founder George Bernard Shaw.

    “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

    A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.
    …….

    “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
    ……

    “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

    George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

    Sure sounds like slavery to me with no hope of being a free person.

    And don’t for get the Eugenics part that is also embraced with enthusiasm by the Webbs,. the other co-founders of the Fabian Society.

    We have all heard about how the Spartans of ancient Greece used to expose new-borns to see if they were fit for survival and training as a Spartan. Exposing a new-born to the elements for one day was a way of testing the babe to see if it was fit. If the baby survived one day exposed to the elements, the baby was fit to be a Spartan, if it did not survive, well, it was no good to be a Spartan. This is somewhat exaggerated. New borns would be examined for any physical impairment. If an impairment was found, then the baby would be left to the elements to die. But only if upon examination an impairment was found.
    link

    From the Groniad no less: Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet, Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable
    …..

    Then you have the type of government where the State is there to protect the rights of the individual. This is the government most of us on this board want as described by E.M. Smith.

    The basic “issue” is that government is best when it is absolutely minimal, driven from the bottom up by locals and local to the people, and leaves most decisions to free actors in a free market (only acting to keep the market free and fair via preventing collusion, trusts, and monopoly).

    The EU, and increasingly, the USA: Is tending to maximal government, driven from the top down from far far away ignoring the local people, and having most decisions made by paid actors of the government with no clue what The People want (or even worse, not caring at all what The People want) often acting to prevent market forces and pushing the agenda of those who collude, form trusts, and want monopoly power; frequently in a Government-Industry consortium oligopoly.

    The original USA was set up to be of the first form. Local Sheriff was the head law enforcement officer in any local area. Counties had State Senators. States had Federal Senators. Everything from the bottom up. Over the decades, one bit at at time, power has shifted to central control. The end game is always collapse of Empire. Only the details change.
    link

    Reply
    • Ted says:
      September 29, 2015 at 11:16 pm

      This distinction reminds me of an argument I recently had with a friend’s wife, about that clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. My friend’s position was that the woman was legitimately thrown in jail, because she had no right to ignore the law passed by the supreme court. She was a representative of the government, and thus not allowed to have her own opinion.

      To that point, I’d been arguing the basic constitutional fact that courts don’t pass laws. Of course, I was having about as much success as I’d have if I’d been arguing with a tree stump. But that last statement left me briefly speechless. “Representative of the government.” Is that really how people think today? The government doesn’t get representatives. The government doesn’t have a voice to be heard. It can’t, by definition, even have an opinion. It’s not a person. It doesn’t get to send emissaries, to make demands of the citizenry.

      If this is how people really think of the government, there’s nothing left to fight for. I hear there’s water on mars now. Maybe we could start a colony.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *