If one pays close attention to the agenda of the Left, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that their aim is the extinction of the human race. Their biggest concerns are the advancement of homosexuality, transgenderism, birth control, and abortion. They are openly hostile to the racial group which has done more than any other to advance life saving technologies and the civil order that makes life as we know it possible. They view the energy we require to make all of modernity possible as a plague on the Earth. Every time a cop does his job by removing some violent criminal from the gene pool, they stir the blacks to riot and pretend it is peaceful protest, likewise for antifa, as will be the case for the next group of left wing terrorists that wants to bring down the State and all of our institutions.
Find literally anything that makes the world safer and more harmonious, and not far behind, you will discover a Leftist trying to destroy it.
This is of course paved over with fluffy sentiments of peace, love, and tolerance. They don’t want to exterminate White people, they just want diversity and the end of “hate”. They don’t want to stop people from breeding, they just want equality for women, homosexuals, and suicidal freaks. They don’t want rampant crime on the streets, they just want to rid the world of gun violence and police brutality. They don’t hate energy, they just want to outlaw it in the hopes that solar powered airplanes will spontaneously emerge once they do.
So for the uninitiated, it might seem like they have truly good intentions, even if their deeds are misguided.
Every now and then though, you get a glimpse of how they really feel. Such was the case today with a piece in the New York Times titled “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?”
The author of the piece, Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University, does his best to say no without coming across like a complete psychopath. To accomplish this, he defines tragedy thusly “In theater, the tragic character is often someone who commits a wrong, usually a significant one, but with whom we feel sympathy in their descent.” In this case, “It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.”
The wrong of course, is that we are hurting the Earth. Climate change, population growth, and factory farming are his primary complaints, which he concludes make us responsible for more suffering and destruction than any other species. Our only saving grace, thing thing which makes our extinction the limited tragedy it is, is that we have art and science. However, the art is clearly of less importance to Mr. May than the suffering we inflict on animals.
So, then, how much suffering and death of nonhuman life would we be willing to countenance to save Shakespeare, our sciences and so forth? Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals. There is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase; it would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger.
Fear not though, fellow humans, though Mr. May views your life as no more valuable than that of a cockroach, he does not want you to kill yourself or be exterminated from the Earth. This, I’m sure, makes him feel as though he is not advocating for the genocide of all humanity. Rather, he only wishes for future humans to not be born.
One might ask here whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans. To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying. In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice. The two situations, then, are not analogous.
Remember this when they tell you how wonderful Planned Parenthood is, how “reproductive rights” are synonymous with birth control and abortion, how homosexuality and transgenderism are perfectly reasonable things to teach prepubescent children.
Perhaps you think him to be a one off nut who happened to get published in the paper of record as a fluke. No threat to the survival of the species for sure. No way some shoddy opinion piece in a communist propaganda rag would stop humanity from reproducing itself, right?
Well, of course not. Most of the human race would not dream of reading this drivel, much less sterilizing themselves to act on it, but that is primarily because most of humanity is not white, and does not care much for the suffering of animals or the broader plight of non-human life. The only people who would even consider such things are White people, and as we have seen from the Times over, and over, and over again, we are the target of their enmity.
With this and the backdrop of immigration policy in mind, consider the “Tragedy in Mouse Utopia“. Scientists conducted an experiment where mice were given all the food, water, and bedding they could ever possibly desire. A population boom predictably ensues, but after several generations, the habitat becomes exceedingly crowded. The result being that male mice become savagely violent and females fail to nurture their young. The subsequent generation became known as the “beautiful ones” – non-violent but interested in little else other than grooming themselves. These mice were unable to interact socially with one another and had no interest in sex, leading to the extinction of the population. Even when this traumatized generation was removed from the stress of their surroundings, they still did not recover and lived out their days in solitude, fixated on grooming. The process was irreversible.
And so it goes, that the only demographic with any interest in controlling their breeding fades from the Earth, and the savages who remain care not for the suffering of others. Will this result in the animal Utopia the author envisions? Of course not.
Once we are gone, and the benefits we bring to the world die with us, the savages will thin their numbers to a sustainable level through violence and inability to sustain the lifesaving systems we had established. So as long as one sees no difference between the races, the human race will survive in harmony with the Earth, finally reaching the equality with other animals these monsters have sought all along. But at least white people, with our energy, our farms, and our lifesaving technologies will be eliminated, and that’s all anybody at the Times really cares about.
There’s a lot more to get to, plus your calls at 740-I-AM-1488
Join us this and every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 5-7pm Eastern, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about timeless ideas, the news of the day, and whatever is on your mind at 740-I-AM-1488
The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!
You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at
This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. Please consider signing up for a membership subscription to get access to the archives and exclusive bonus content. I also sell shirts, hats, mousepads, and other cool stuff. Or you can just fork over money by donating.