Eva-Maria Michels

Eva-Maria Michels, born 1976 in Western Germany, married, four children, previously self-employed in the field of market research and analysis, living in France since 2004. After training as a European secretary she graduated in political science, modern China studies and history from the universities of Trier, Germany, and Taipei, Taiwan.

Source: shutterstock A project of the Left: supporting childlessness

‘BirthStrike’:
The Green Path

Europe is to become an underdeveloped continent, saved from the white man

Germany is currently discussing the manifesto ‘Kinderfrei statt kinderlos’ (‘child-free instead of childless’) by Verena Brunschweiger, a high school teacher from Regensburg, in which the educationalist pleads in favour of abandoning childbearing for environmental reasons: “It’s to do with whether I want to contribute to overpopulation or environmental destruction, or whether I want to have it nice for other children and plants and animals that are already there,” explains the 38-year-old. Brunschweiger is thus the prototype of the brainwashed victim of the contemporary ecological ideology that has been circulating in the Western world since the times of the Club of Rome. Although none of the horror scenarios of these elitist social engineers have come to pass and many of the ‘scientific’ prognoses have been reversed, for ideological reasons the Club of Rome still remains a reference point for manipulating politicians and people who think politically correctly.

Interestingly, among the ‘intellectual luminaries’ of the Club of Rome, there are many who have long advocated the rights of non-European immigrants in Europe and promoted immigration, such as the Bertelsmann Foundation, represented in that exclusive circle by Liz Mohn, a token woman.

Yves Cochet, the founder of the French Greens, a long-standing member of parliament for the party and Environment Minister under the Chirac-Jospin government from 2001 to 2002, who gave the news magazine ‘L'Obs’ an interview for the January 4th issue that also caused a stir outside France, proves that this is no coincidence. As in the interview with Brunschweiger, it’s all about saving the planet. The journalists Carole Barjon, Barbara Krief and Rémi Noyon begin the conversation by saying that already a small part of 20 to 30-year-olds, so roughly of the Brunschweiger generation, are thinking about not having their own offspring so as to save the planet – a consideration that was unimaginable 30 years ago. Even today, the majority of French people are still not receptive to this idea, as the very negative reactions to a study in the magazine ‘Environmental Research Letters’ proved, which the news agency Agence France-Presse reported on in the fall, but at least nowadays one can think about it out loud. And that's what they're doing along with the Green Yves Cochet.

When asked whether population growth needs to be slowed down to save the climate, the Green responds: “We must also take demography into account. It is a truism that fewer children need to be born if the world's population is to be reduced.” The journalists then wanted to know whether births should be limited. Cochet explains his strategy: “I propose that we reverse our birthrate-based family policy by distributing child benefit according to a contrary logic. The more children you have, the less child benefit there is, and from the third birth there will be nothing at all.” When asked whether it should be France that has to make the most effort in this regard, Cochet replied: “If you admit that you are neo-Malthusian, you are quickly accused of racism or elitism. I therefore want to make it clear that I do not want the proposed measures to affect the poorest countries, where the birth rate is higher than in others. On the contrary. The rich countries are the first to have a duty to shrink demographically. Their lifestyles cause the most pollution. In addition, we could better accommodate the migrants who knock on our door if we limited our births.”

This statement by the French Green Party has the merit of being unambiguous. Anyone who has tried to explain the truly irrational immigration policy of the European ‘elites’ with terms such as ‘the great replacement’ or ‘population exchange’ has been represented as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and loser with irrational fears, who has been unable to cope with globalisation. But thanks to Cochet, there is now official proof that the Western elites have systematically adopted a two-pronged approach: On the one hand, the red-green ‘environmental protection’ policy, which in reality serves to destroy the family and the economy, and on the other, the promotion of mass immigration. They want to kill off the Europeans and their culture. Right at the top of their list is a planned democide, which is to be facilitated by an ethnocide and possibly completed by a genocide. The direction has been set, it is pure Rousseau: The world must be saved by the ‘noble savages’ from destruction by the evil civilized European. Then the left will finally succeed in establishing paradise on earth, something they have been working on doggedly since 1789 and have repeatedly failed to achieve. But in their eyes the previous failures are probably due to a lack of thoroughness, because the attempts were limited to the extermination of certain classes and population groups. The modern left therefore wants to make a proper job of it now and eradicate the roots of the entire European culture, or at least decimate and mix it up so much that nothing remains of Europe's original civilization.

Of course one can hardly announce such plans openly to the local population, because then they would probably fight back. Therefore, since the 1970s, when the globalist Club of Rome tried to unsettle the West with its never-realized human catastrophes, ‘women's rights’ have been made palatable to women. But in reality these ‘privileges’ for women only conceal measures that are intended to alienate women from their biological role as mothers. First, pregnancy is pathologized: chemical contraception (with all the health consequences for women such as breast cancer) from an early age is the all-purpose weapon against it, and abortion is legalised (according to official statistics, France has about 200,000 cases a year, by coincidence this is the same number as immigrants legally arriving from the South every year). More recently, criticism of this has either been criminalised (in France, since 2017, the 1993 law against the ‘prevention of abortion,’ which bans protests and the like before abortion clinics, has been extended to anonymous pregnancy counseling on the Internet; the operators of counseling sites face the threat of two years' imprisonment and a penalty of 30,000 euros), or an attempt is made to drop the last ethical barriers (in Germany, advertisements for abortion and the attempts of the Young Socialists to legalize abortions until birth). Secondly, through the provision of infrastructure (day-care centers, all-day schools) and fiscal policy, the state is trying to force the last reluctant housewives into the labour market, because a fully employed woman has on average fewer children than a housewife or part-time worker. The parental allowance, which is sold as a family-friendly measure, is in reality an instrument that is aimed primarily at lower middle class women, who in particular have often been stay-at-home moms for both idealistic and financial reasons. If they do not accept the state ‘offers,’ they are not only financially severely disadvantaged, but also socially discriminated against, since the government has its measures accompanied by PR campaigns against the ‘lazy, anti-social housewives.’

The same pattern is pursued in the case of children and the soon to be institutionalised ‘children's rights.’ Since the 1970s they have been increasingly exposed to state sex education, which has less and less to do with scientific biology lessons, but more and more with instruction in pornography and sexual practices. Through the forced sexualisation of younger and younger children, hedonistic adults who are unable to commit and have no desire for offspring, are to be bred. Through ‘children's rights,’ the state will soon try to make parents the enemy of their own children's rights, if they try to educate against state-imposed hyper-sexualization. In the worst case, the state will destroy families in the name of children's rights, as it did in the communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe against families that weren’t toeing the party line.

Finally, the European ‘elites’ are trying to destroy the civilizing foundation of the continent through the forced immigration of young men from Muslim cultures. Criticism of their anti-European racism is ‘Islamophobic’ and ‘racist.’ Thanks to the propaganda of the mass media and a judiciary which has de facto created a two-tier legal system, the non-European parallel culture is allowed to spread further and further. Collateral damage, like murders due to cultural uprooting or imported criminals (a negative selection from the South arrives in Europe, which is not necessarily representative of the people of their countries of origin) are, as far as possible, trivialized, glossed over and concealed, criticism of official politics criminalized as ‘hate crime’ and whole population groups, like the rebellious Saxons, are defamed as neo-Nazis. Meanwhile, in the media and official history lessons, European history is rewritten in the sense of the left-wing worldview, so that, to put it simply, everything "evil" in the world comes from Christianity, right-wing colonialism and nationalism. The fact that colonialism, racism and nationalism are genuinely leftist projects from the times of the Enlightenment and were supported by European leftists in the past who fought Christianity is not only not mentioned, but reversed into its opposite. But since general education about history hardly goes back beyond some generalities about the Third Reich, hardly anyone notices this and almost everyone believes it.

The third element for the sustainable destruction of European civilisation is forced deindustrialisation. It is being carried out ever more radically and rapidly in the name of the insane policy of saving the climate. Functioning, clean nuclear energy is being replaced by wind turbines, which will only operate as long as they are accompanied by dirty coal-fired power stations and state subsidies. Energy-intensive production is therefore inevitably unsustainable in the long term in Europe and will be relocated elsewhere. And to ensure that the last remnants of industry also disappear, the EU and the remnants of Western nation states have now declared war on the automotive industry, one of the last still forward-looking industrial sectors in Europe, by banning diesel engines and then banning combustion engines in general. The state-acclaimed replacement products, the electric cars, are neither clean (think of the contents of the batteries that are mined in Africa and Asia by children for the profit of Western multinationals and assembled into batteries in China by poor migrant workers without protection), nor are they really roadworthy (they have very little autonomy and can’t withstand the cold), nor are they affordable for the average consumer. The European of the future will therefore probably have to travel with donkeys and horse-drawn carts again.

Cochet’s interview has the merit of clarifying the fronts and openly putting the plans of the Western ‘elites’ on the table. Europe is to become an underdeveloped continent, inhabited mainly by people from underdeveloped cultures. As on every occasion since 1789, the leftists are likely to fail again this time to build their utopia, but to the extent that their current project trumps the previous one in megalomania, the coming bloodshed is likely to surpass all previous ones. God help Europe!



Translated from eigentümlich frei, where the original article was published on March 18th 2019.

Support Us

You can read equity & freedom for free, but making it costs real money. So please support us!

Donors will be given exclusive access to the comment section.