After Promoting Lunatic “Green New Deal” Pol Pot Agenda, Media Backs Down

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 8, 2019

It’s funny.

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first came out and said she was going to cut all fossil fuels by 2030, the media was all cheering her on.

Now, that her people have come out and said that actually they’re not going to cut them all, the media is being more critical, with some saying that the plan is insane. On Thursday, WaPo ran an op-ed entitled “‘We’re nuts!’ isn’t a great pitch for a Green New Deal.”

The plan was published by NPR on Thursday, and does appear to say that they want zero fossil fuels in just over ten years, even though they’re claiming they aren’t going to go that far.

Basically, what they are talking about is either:

  1. A plan of full deindustrialization, a removal of most or all electricity, and basically a return of civilization to an agrarian state, or
  2. Completely insane

I’m not even necessarily against the second thing in some philosophical sense, but I’m pretty sure if we did that we would be invaded by another country.

The technology thing is genuinely a difficult question, as the direction technology is currently taking us in appears to be certainly very bad. When Amazon starts releasing consumer versions of a neural interface device in 15 years, what exactly happens to our society? People are glued to their phones now – what is going to happen when they can do video games and porn in a virtual reality simulation that is just as real or even more real than reality?

It’s a problem.

Anyway, this isn’t actually the thing that AOC is talking about – she is promoting something that is legitimately insane, or at least so stupid that you would have to be a literal drooling retard to believe it.

I don’t know if she is insane, retarded or just lying.

But I do know that any non-retard/insane 5-year-old can understand that if 83% of our energy comes from “non-renewable” resources, and you’re talking about removing all of those, then you’re talking about cutting out the overwhelming majority of electricity.

It isn’t physically possible to build enough of these goddamn disgusting windmills to make up for all of that lost energy. And there are not places to build too many more hydroelectric dams.

Solar power doesn’t really work, because there is nowhere to store it, and even if it did work there wouldn’t be enough space to put enough solar panels to power the entire US.

The one option is increasing nuclear power, which doesn’t release carbon dioxide, but they’re against that too.

What they are calling for – not in this paper specifically, but in their public statements – is for people to rush to invent new technologies, now, before their plan goes into full effect.

That is completely insane. There is no other way to describe presenting a ten year plan that requires the invention of new technologies.

There is no single element of this that makes any sense.

Here’s the craziest part of the report:

92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans.

Is it true that these high numbers of people support this?

Probably not. I assume not. I hope not.

I think what they did was some rigged polling. Or people just don’t know what this is.

I’m not sure. But this is one of the nuttiest phenomenon I’ve ever witnessed. A type of collective madness is happening surrounding this global warming issue.

I don’t really believe that carbon causes warming, but maybe it does. Who knows. Climatology is not a real science, so you can’t really know, because all of these people are just paid shills working for the UN and getting rich.

So maybe it is real and they’ve just radically exaggerated it for whatever reason.

I’m willing to go with that. Whatever.

As I’ve already said over and over again, if this is real and it is going to lead to an apocalypse, we are going to have to go with nuclear power. We don’t have any other choice.

Furthermore, why are we not making an issue of deforestation, if this is the thing? You know that plants breath carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. It’s a part of photosynthesis, which you learn about in third grade, yet none of these people are talking about the role that plantlife could play in reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

Why are we allowing third world people to clearcut rainforests?

These people destroy ancient forests with slash and burn farming. That means they cut the trees and set them on fire, and the nutrients from the burned trees create extra fertile soil for a few seasons before the land becomes virtually untillable due to due to rapid soil erosion which happens due to the nature of the thing (rainforests hold all of the topsoil in a root system and when you destroy that it just washes away).

Why doesn’t the UN do something about this?

It’s not only that they’re not doing anything – they’re not even talking about it.

You would think this would be important.

I remember when I was a kid, rainforests were referred to as “the world’s lungs.” But when you Google that now, you don’t get any recent results.

The only thing that the UN is talking about and doing is forcing deindustrialization of white countries.

This just again speaks to how dishonest and agenda-driven this whole program is. It is simply an attack on white countries. It has nothing at all to do with stopping a doomsday scenario.

The media is pushing back against this “Green New Deal” a bit, yes. But they are going to reformulate this and come back with it, and it is going to be a major issue in the 2020 election.

You would think people would have more important things to worry about, but this has become a type of religion.