Having children is environmental vandalism. The lesson of Vogue

Is bringing a child into the world environmental vandalism? Yes, if they are born into the current lifestyle. The only ecologically responsible way to have a child is to instruct it from the outset not to consume and to overturn the current political-economic system of the West. The fashion influencer’s lesson explains what really constitutes ecological conversion.

Creation 06_05_2021 Italiano Español
Nell Frizzell

What is the fundamental question that a progressive, white, western woman of 2021 asks or should ask herself when thinking about having a baby? Vogue, the international fashion monthly that also sets cultural trends, or - to be more precise - its columnist Nell Frizzell (in the photo) explains it to us with an article whose title says it all: “Is having a baby in 2021 pure environmental vandalism?”. Nell Frizzell is a writer who publishes a monthly column in Vogue about women and families, where family obviously means anything that brings more than one person together. What defines a family, she explained in the previous article to the one on children and the environment, “is the intention to be a family and the love to sustain it”.

But back to the difficult decision whether to have a baby: “Is it possible to live an ecologically responsible life while adding yet another person to our overstretched planet?” And for those who have already made radical choices: “Can I get away with it if I never learn to drive, never get a dog, and keep wearing the same three pairs of jeans for the rest of my life?”

In case these sound like crazy questions, know that this is ecological conversion. Because when you convince yourself that we are living in a state of climate emergency; that this is the greatest threat to life on this planet; that even the Covid-19 pandemic is nothing compared to the catastrophes that lie ahead if we do not change course immediately, then “there are few questions more worrying than that of having a baby”. And with what heart do you bring a child into the world when you know that when he or she is 60 years old they will be in a world “without fresh water”, destined to live on “a dry and barren earth”?

But not all children are the same. Yes, because the real problem is “the strain on the Earth’s resources that another Western child would add”. That is, a “rich” child, because it is the rich - the white Westerners - who are destroying the planet, it is their lifestyle that must be fought and stopped.

And so a child can still be brought into the world, as in fact Nell Frizzell did, but on one condition: that he or she is brought up to turn away from the “fever of consumerism” and to overturn “a political system that rewards a tiny rich minority at the expense of everyone else”. In short, the choice is between not having children or having a Greta Thunberg in every home. Every other option is environmental vandalism.

Only those who don’t want to see don’t understand that the aim is to wipe out all traces of development and more generally to wipe out the West in order to regress to primitive societies, in the name of the environment. This also means wiping out Christianity, because Christianity has been the main factor in the development (which is not just economic growth) of Europe and the entire West. It is no coincidence that indigenism is the fashion of the moment, and even in the Catholic world there is nothing but glorification of the life of primitive populations, of their mythical balance with nature.

We are not dealing with the hyperbole of a fanatical ecologist, this is the voice of the elites who govern us and who are pursuing the destruction of the West; who have convinced Westerners, whites - even worse if they are male - that they are responsible for all the evil in the world, cultivating in our societies a self-hatred that has no historical equal.