Posted on 12/23/2016 7:18:48 AM PST by rktman
While liberals talk a lot about racism they ignore the far greater threat of their own Anti-Human Movement (AHM).
The AHM is a way to group and describe those people, the vast majority of modern liberals, who object not to this or to that race but to humanity in general. They’re the people who view other people as the problem. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement -- which believes mankind should go away in order to help the planet -- is the extreme wing of the AHM.
While the AHM doesn’t have a secret handshake, regular meetings, monthly dues, or even a membership list, it does have an immense impact on modern politics. Because their thesis -- people are the problem -- is so odious, AHM members generally avoid explicitly stating their distaste for humanity.
However, we can see what they believe from occasional slips, the statements of the more extreme members, and the policies that they support.
To the AHM, people in general are a blight on the planet and civilization.
That’s why the AHM supports killing the unborn and denying medical treatment to the elderly. We often hear liberals talk about how federal funding of abortion would reduce the number of people on welfare, for example. AHM members don’t think that the problem with welfare is that it’s too easy to get or that we could reform welfare. Rather, they think that the problem is too many people, and their solution is to kill those people before they’re born.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’d volunteer to help :)
Glad you clarified that. ;-)
Yep. If the AHM really practiced what they preach there would be no membership and consequently no AHM.
Libs are suicidal. They’re using multiculturalism as the bullet to kill us all.
Go on Youtube and find a video of the forestry service or logging industry cutting down a tree.
Look at the comments.
You’ll find comments not only deploring the cutting down of a tree because all the oxygen on earth will disappear and the earth will die, but that humans themselves are not of same value as trees, etc.
Another wing, or manifestation, of the People who Hate Humanity, is the "Suicide By Proxy" contingent.
These are people who hate themselves and hate their own lives, but are too cowardly to do away with themselves. This causes them a great deal of existential angst, the discomfort of which they sublimate by trying to induce their neighbors and countrymen to commit suicide.
Germany's Angela Merkel as an example of this, as is Al Gore.
There is actually an organized movement for people who feel this way; it's called the Deep Green Resistance. One of its leaders is a female named Lierre Keith. She is featured in a number of YouTube videos.
“I love humanity — It’s people I can’t stand!” — Linus Van Pelt
I love humanity. It’s people I can’t stand.
Do you want me to go into cardiac arrest right before christmas?
First of all, the earth doesn’t “die”. The number of ways to truly destroy the earth number about 8 and the odds are staggeringly against it happening soon.
Second, I like trees and animals (certain ones) etc., but they’re here for OUR USE. Not the other way around.
I love my little cat buddy and hate animal abuse, but if it came to saving a human or my cat, I’d save the human.
...hope he doesn’t read this.
Well, with the gloomy mood they pull down on themselves, they might end up doing it yet, only later.
It reflects a fundamental ambivalence about the role of humanity on this globe. Somewhere between vacating it entirely (e.g. these nuts) and selfishly turning it all into a cesspool in the name of almighty gold (e.g. modern China), must be a happy medium.
It always seems to turn out that old fashioned faith knew the answer, once the other answers disappoint us.
When trees are more valuable than annoying tissue masses in the womb, well................ Says a lot.
I’ve wondered sometimes about an area the bible never directly addresses, but has some very pregnant hints about.
Animal souls. What properties has God bestowed upon them.
Making a long story short, if they DO show up in heaven, then they, with their present suffering, are also part of the burden-bearing redemption story led by Christ.
C. S. Lewis joked that a heaven for mosquitoes and a hell for men might be conveniently combined, but I wouldn’t even envision that. These now-annoying critters could be a welcome feature of heaven’s scene, no longer dining on blood, a necessity forced on them by a world under sin, because mankind itself would not be under sin.
Conscience can’t be entirely snuffed out — only displaced.
Cheer up buddy (you and your cat).
This guff is nothing before Christ. Christ knew about it all, and will gladly bear even its burden, if only thereby a salvation may be worked.
And sometimes the saved may embrace categories we might never expect as humans, because their merit seems to be so negative. But Christ sees humans as vessels whose merit is never enough until He fills them with His merit, and the way He convinces them to permit that (because it must be voluntary, accepted by love) are beyond human ken. (Although I strain and struggle to understand some ways, and can explicate some illustrations, I am far, far from being able to lay out some pat formula for it.)
For instance, they criticize America and other developed, Western countries for being overpopulated, for polluting, and for destroying the wilderness. They don't seem to object at all when Third World people or nations with leftist governments do the same thing, in spite of the fact that Western countries have stable or shrinking populations while Third World countries actually are overpopulating and overconsuming resources. Similarly, the US and other developed countries tend to be much better caretakers of natural areas (through national parks etc) than Third World countries, yet "the environment" is used as another rallying cry against the evil, oppressive nature of white males.
Yet another example of this hypocrisy is the liberal stance on immigration. Liberal "environmentalists" are opposed to any restrictions on immigration (while complaining about overpopulation and overuse of natural resources in the US), in spite of the fact that Third World immigrants and their progeny account for almost all population growth in Europe and most of it in the US.
These double standards remind me of how during the Cold War, you'd never hear any "Earth Day" type protesting a strip mine, a dam, or a clear-cut in the Soviet Union or in China (nor would those governments tolerate environmentalists had they been there). When Third World people or Marxist governments polluted and industrialized, it was in the name of "progress." When Americans or other Westerners did these things, they were engaged in Capitalist oppression. What that tells you is that the agenda of most liberal "environmentalists" really has nothing to do with "the environment" at all.
I wouldn’t say that I ‘Hate’ Hannity, but he isn’t my favorite Fox news show.
I am for mass human exinction..as long as the leftist go first.
Then, after they have all killed themselves, I will say I was for it until I was against it.:)
If they were so smart, they would realize that their standard of living depends on other people. I do not think that they would enjoy a post apocalyptic life style in the least.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.