Environmentalists Disclaim Responsibility for Population Control Hostage-Taker
Steven Mosher - September 3, 2010
On Wednesday at the Discovery Channel offices in Maryland, environmental activist James Jay Lee took company employees hostage, threatening to kill them unless the media outlet agreed to turn itself into a propaganda channel for population control. The standoff ended when the gun-toting and bomb-laden eco-terrorist was shot dead by a SWAT team.
Lee had earlier outlined his demands on his website, savetheplanetprotest.com, where he posted a 1,100 word manifesto aimed at the Discovery Channel. In it, he demanded that Discovery change its programming and focus on getting rid of people who are “polluting” the planet.
“All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants…” Lee wrote, “…programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. … That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”
It is because there are too many people, he exclaims elsewhere on the site, that “Global Warming is a reality. The massive extinction of animals is happening all over the world.”
Where did he get such wacko ideas?
From the mainstream environmental movement, that’s where, which early embraced the idea that the best kind of environmental protection was population control.
Tags: Al Gore, Eco-Fascism, Malthusians, Misanthropy, Paul Ehrlich, sterilization, Zero Population Growth
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
September 21st, 2010 at 7:35 pm
This guy is a misinformed fellow and he probably represents a good proportion of the human population. There are people who still think that the world is overpopulated and that people should stop giving birth especially the poor because they are straining the resources of the world causing more and more environmental problems of the world. I say they are misinformed because of several reasons some of which i will tty to outline here -:
the first challenge is that these guys are ingnoring the fact that less than 20% percent of the world’s population are responsible for over 80% of human resource consumption and the poor are the least consumers or have the least effect on the environment in terms of damage. Its just that for socio-political reasons it is things like expanding of the Namib dersert or th deforestation of the Amazon that receives more media coverage than the deteriorating ozone layer…
September 24th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
To add to Claude’s point, the world’s poorest might have more children on average then the western middle class, but they also have a much higher mortality rate, especially were babies and young children are concerned. The fact that many of them don’t make it to the age of reproduction counter balances much of their supposed “population explosion.” Meanwhile many of the plutocrats who call for Malthusian policies, themselves, with their giant heated mansions, massive properties and frequent trips in stretch limos and private jets, waste more resources then 100 average Third world families put together. Couple this with the fact that world birthrates (especially in the West) have fallen bellow the replacement rate and you can see what bunk Lee’s anxieties were founded on. It’s very sad such nonsense cost him his own life.