Writers Alan Johnson and Murray Sinclair both attempt to denigrate my well-founded concerns about the Globalist eugenicist sustainability cult and one of its key tyrannical mechanisms, United Nations’ Agenda 21.
Johnson suggests that “Gregory Hartnell doesn’t seem to understand the differences between sustainability, birth control and eugenics,” while Mr. Sinclair suggests that I am using “arguments that are the intellectual equivalent (using the term generously) of a 9/11 conspiracy theory.”
Both writers seem to have missed the whole point of my original letter, which suggested columnists David Suzuki and Ian Hanington support Uruguayan president Jose Mujica because he votes for population reduction and the so-called ‘family planning’ programmes of UN Agenda 21.
While I agree with Johnson’s assertion that greens support legal, safe and accessible birth control, I part company with him when he writes that fewer unwanted children is a way to slow the environmental damage we are already causing in this world.
Sinclair calls Agenda 21 “a voluntary, non-binding environmental plan from the United Nations,” and notes that Christian Heritage Party candidate Dr. Philip Ney included similar warnings about the proposition in his election platform.
While I am not a member of that party, I am unashamed to confirm that I was one of the people who voted for him.
Basically, I think Ney and those awakened souls who condemn the dangerous ‘sustainable development’ myth of UN Agenda 21 make more sense than sustainability cultists like David Suzuki and Ian Hanington.