Occasional Cortex Speaks Again

That author of the Green Nude Deal, the Left’s new icon, is now saying “no more kids for you”. But, as Dr. Turley notes, her vision will necessarily lead to a demographic decline in her followers. Which is good news for the rest of us.

Dim bulbs such as AOC can do some damage while they’re here, but at least they won’t reproduce.

19 thoughts on “Occasional Cortex Speaks Again

    • Yes. Hollywood’s crooked values, or perverted values. No faith. Chase money at any cost. GET rich fast, no other considerations. Break the other skier’s leg so that you win. Destroy the other cheerleader’s mom , so your rival will be absent and you win.

      The big fish are cheaters, thieves, looters, and are never held responsible.

      Fill sheeples’ minds with false info, pompous vacuous info. Adopt the basest of celebrities as our Fuhrers, Leaders, mentors, teachers, professors and guiders, with abysmal naivete and see what the voters will vote for.

      Leave CNN chatting and confabbing and poisoning our minds with fake news and imaginary achievements of jihadis.

      Hollywood . . . Destroying our morals, families and unborn babies, schools and substituting curricula with achievements of islam.

      When the voters are submerged in such filth then we get critters like this and Ilhan and Rachida : elected in America, by America but serving their own agendas and countries. |While we are sleeping or drunk.

      Theses mentally semi-recumbent creatures are the result of our superficiality, stupid. And the result of the bad blood between and among the cursed Parties. While they are at each other’s throats islam thrives.
      Thrives because they follow a book, not necessary sublime in content but brutally and diabolically practical.
      NO FAITH, NO BOOK OF WISDOM. NO A GUIDING STAR. lOST. Now we are vulnerable to the tornadoes of islam.
      The tornado is harsh therefore we are attracted to it.

  1. I enjoyed the comment someone made here (I think), on AOC’s proposal to ban aviation and replace it with high-speed rail; they looked forward to seeing the construction of the rail bridge from the US to Japan (never mind all those deep Pacific trenches, and shifting tectonic plates).

    Nevertheless, North America remains tardy, compared with Europe, Japan or China, in building such links over (relatively) short distances, and powering them electrically (though the means by which such electricity is generated, as with electric/hybrid cars, seems not to have been addressed seriously by some advocates).

    A more moderate and sensible measure would be to start by taxing aviation fuel for short-haul flights (there’s no excuse, except perhaps cost, for taking a ‘plane from London to Paris when there’s an excellent high-speed rail link, and the rail stations, unlike most of the airports, are in the city centres), and use the revenue to expand the rail network; Americans’ famous ingenuity could surely come up with similar solutions?

    • Mark, I believe you said you’re familiar with Canada? Can you tell us how Canada manages these high-speed rail connections?

      I ask because the distances involved would be similar to those of the U.S.– i.e., humungous rail footprint. Canada does have that transcontinental railroad but it’s a heritage site now: heavily subsidized and mostly utilized by tourists and railroad buffs. But how does it fare otherwise?

      Here in the U.S., the Bo-Wash Amtrak works well. Travels between Boston and D.C., and is a favorite of politicians who don’t want the hassle of flying.

      Railroads died out here due to unions and then the advent of easy air travel. Even socialist California has had to abandon its airy-fairy plan for rail from LA to San Fran…way too expensive once you take into account all the environmental blockades concerns the Greenies put forth. Ain’t never gonna happen in a state where 43% of the population gets food stamps and/or the dole.

      OTOH, more billionaires live in California than elsewhere. They could set up a gofundme for rail and easily pay for it, too. It is they who pushed the idea anyway.
      Here’s an interesting site about road travel in Europe vs the U.S.

      Traveling from the eastern border of France to its western border, for instance, is at most a 590-mile journey, which is about 200 miles shorter than the distance across Texas. However, driving across France can take up to three days to complete because of its winding roads whereas driving across Texas can take just one day due to its direct east-to-west highways. Similarly, driving across Spain and Germany would take about the same amount of time.


      • Outside the densely populated area of Quebec City – Windsor, we mostly use airplanes. Even Montreal-Toronto is mostly airplanes.

        So pretty much like the U.S., really.

        • Yes, air travel because of the distances involved.

          In the U.S., President Eisenhower started an interstate roadway building program that still goes on today. The state roads vary in condition/congestion depending on how those roads are maintained. Lotsa union feather-bedding, but not as bad as the railroads. At any rate, many people prefer the shun-pikes that permit them to avoid the long, boring interstates. Traffic congestion in California is a menace.

          Train travel is for the wealthy with time to kill. That California ever thought it would be a good idea to have “high speed” track laid from LA to San Fran whilst still maintaining its purist environmental rules just demonstrates how deluded they are.

      • I have travelled by rail from Vancouver to Edmonton, but I was on holiday and not in a hurry; I agree high-speed rail is not viable for most long-distance trips.
        However, to take an example I’m aware of, of a shorter journey, Sydney, Australia is 150 miles from the capital, Canberra, and there is no direct rail link, let alone a high-speed one. The road journey takes around 2 1/2 hours, so most parliamentarians, etc fly in in small aircraft. Trouble is, Canberra has a lake, so they tend to arrive late after the mists have cleared. A decent rail service would get them there in under an hour.
        Fossil fuels are finite: if we’re allowed to use them at all, we should conserve them for future generations; even if a realistic alternative is found, they’re likly to be needed for lubricants and petrochemicals.

        Apologies for the late reply; I’ve just spent a few days in Somerset with the brother who’s not in Vancouver, and the Internet, even GoV, wasn’t a priority!

    • This is the siren-song of socialism. Let’s siphon off the profits from a flourishing, free-enterprise company, and let the government use it to benefit society in a way that free enterprise won’t.

      Except that if there is a demand for a good, why won’t a company supply it?

      Perhaps its so expensive, or just plain impossible, and a company that is concerned with efficiency wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. The government under Obama spent billions of dollars subsidizing solar companies like Solindra, ultimately losing everything to not just graft and inefficiency, but in trying to get around the laws of nature.

      The laws of nature specify that there is simply not enough energy in conversion of sunlight to use it as a significant energy source to replace fossil fuel generation. And, I think it’s time we acknowledge that so-called “fossil” fuels are not simply the fermented remains of old trees and grasses.

      Anyway, the fact that an enterprise has to be funded by the government is a sure sign that it’s not worth the money or effort. Why should we make airplane travel more expensive by siphoning off profits to build a rail system that, at best, is not as efficient as the airplanes it’s parasiting, and most certainly will cost 10 times as much as the politicians promise.

  2. Sitting in the local having a quiet pint or three reading g of v via the pub’s WiFi. Could be worse…

    I wonder how these people would respond to the argument that really there is no point in their endeavour because ultimately it is self-defeating.

  3. Interesting thing with communists like this tool in the video is they usually don’t announce their ludicrous ideas,but wait till they get full grab on power and simply send out an “ukase” ordering their imbecility on plebs. Of course top echalon of “leaders” for some reason never actually does any sacrificing they impose on the people they rule. Not much difference between this Occasional Cortex thing or Pope or Merkel or Maduro. They don’t enjoy in “fruits” of their preaching. That part is left to those less fortunate.

    • Cortez is a Stalinist in a skirt. She is more charming and more attractive, but to implement her policies would take a heavy-handed police state, prison camps and re-education centers. Frankly, I don’t see anything amusing or attractive about her.

  4. Appaling! She’s lecturing about American women not having any children but invites half the third world into the Country with their children…

  5. What she doesn’t want is white babies, she obviously has no problem with third world women breeding like mice… here in Sweden we have been brainwashed into having less children for decades, I – always a rebel – had four children and my workmates called me “Mrs Rabbit”… were I young again now I’d have four more!

  6. If these people ever get into power, they’ll “license” children. Have a child without a license? It’ll get put up for adoption, forcibly.

    Then they’ll have all sorts of factors to determine who is licensed to have a child. Or two.

    It’ll be people like themselves who get the licenses, be sure of it.

    • We’ll be just like China’s “one child” program, a grimly utopian scheme China has abandoned just in time for Occasional Cortex to take up the baton. What a moron the woman is.

  7. As someone else asked: did she make the same video in Spanish and other languages? Which groups have the highest fertility rates in the US?

Comments are closed.