Archive

Posts Tagged ‘eugenics’

Enviro-Eugenicists Announce Mass Die-Off To Depopulate The World

March 17, 2013 1 comment

Here’s another jaw-dropping report on “The Big Die Off” scientists claiming that murdering mass populations is exactly what they intend to do to us.   Sad to know that the majority of people in this Nation haven’t a clue what “Eugenics” means, who (AND WHAT)  obama appointed as his “Science & Technology” Czar and just how deep this evil slithers.  It’s so outrageous, diabolical and incomprehensible that most people simply will not believe it.  Try to explain it to them and you will be labeled some sort of lunatic.

Here it is, for all to see….. whether they believe it or not: http://explosivereports.com/2013/03/15/enviro-eugenicists-announce-mass-die-off/

I want to know what that E-V-I-L eugenics freak and Ehrlich prodigy, Czar John Holdren, has been cooking up for us in the dark crevices of our White House. With NO Science degree, John Holdren is obama’s “Science and Technology” Czar. Holdren co-wrote a book in 1977, Ecoscience, with Paul and Ann Ehrlich, the eugenics gurus. Population control, a book that mused openly about mass sterilizations, forced abortions, putting sterilants in the water to control the population. It’s the fact that his ideological mentors, including one of the top international eugenics members most renowned, again, for promoting these same ideas of social engineering through the guise of “science” that basically amounts to eugenics and taking away babies from “undesirables”. He was paying homage to this mentor as recently as two years ago at one of the most prominent science gatherings of the country, the AAAS gathering, and there has been little, if any public questioning about it.

Some of obama’s czars have things that are so frightening in their past that no American would approve– if these guys were being appointed by Republicans, the left would be on fire with this. They’d be calling for their treason trials and publicly open town square lynching.

Apparently not only is he in favor of zero population growth but also zero economic growth. He wanted a zero GDP, and here’s one of the quotes in the book that he co-wrote, Ecoscience:

“…. it is now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it? Why should we not strive for zero economic growth as well as zero population growth.” Is there any question in your mind why the obama regime has been so busy systematically decimating all production and manufacturing in our Nation?

Czar John Holdren’s mentor, Harrison Brown, saw the world population as ”a pulsating mass of maggots”. Holdren himself describes the world population as “useless eaters”.

In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. His concern? “The problem with that method is GETTING THE PEOPLE TO DRINK IT.”

Here’s a few excerpts:

“The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. …

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.”

“To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. …

“…this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.”

Later, he concludes, “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”

“To date, (1977) there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Czar Holdren’s view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given his current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. Keep in mind that this book (Ecoscience) was written in 1977.]

I’d sure like to know what that evil beasts has been cooking up for the American people since he took the throne anointed him by the obama regime. Out of all the treasonists, trolls, demons and terrorists slithering about obama’s regime, Czar Holdren is the only one that truly gives me nightmares.

holdren

Who Is Margaret Sanger and What Is Planned Parenthood?

October 29, 2012 Leave a comment

TWG: These are the vermin that the leftist DIMS are advocating for these days.  Hard to believe this group of racist genocidal maniacs have any credibility or that they still exist today.  We can thank the so-called “educators” for hiding the truth about these monsters.  DIMS are proud of their alliance with this racist, genocidal chain of baby slaughterers.

“WE DO NOT WANT WORD TO GET OUT THAT WE WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE NEGRO POPULATION.”  ~Margaret Sanger, Founder Planned Parenthood

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  ~Margaret Sanger,
Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

 

 

The Truth About MARGRET SANGER

(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)

How Planned Parenthood Duped America

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as “gospel”; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America’s family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as “social orthodoxy.”

Blaming Families

Sanger’s obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that “I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families.” Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, “free-thinking” views of her father, whose “anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity” in a predominantly Irish community.

The fact that the wealthy families in her hometown of Corning, N.Y., had relatively few children, Sanger took as prima facie evidence of the impoverishing effect of larger families. The personal impact of this belief was heightened 1899, at the age of 48. Sanger was convinced that the “ordeals of motherhood” had caused the death of her mother. The lingering consumption (tuberculosis) that took her mother’s life visited Sanger at the birth of her own first child on Nov. 18, 1905. The diagnosis forced her to seek refuge in the Adirondacks to strengthen her for the impending birth. Despite the precautions, the birth of baby Grant was “agonizing,” the mere memory of which Sanger described as “mental torture” more than 25 years later. She once described the experience as a factor “to be reckoned with” in her zealous campaign for birth control.

From the beginning, Sanger advocacy of sex education reflected her interest in population control and birth prevention among the “unfit.” Her first handbook, published for adolescents in 1915 and entitled, What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, featured a jarring afterword:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

To Sanger, the ebbing away of moral and religious codes over sexual conduct was a natural consequence of the worthlessness of such codes in the individual’s search for self-fulfillment. “Instead of laying down hard and fast rules of sexual conduct,” Sanger wrote in her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, “sex can be rendered effective and valuable only as it meets and satisfies the interests and demands of the pupil himself.” Her attitude is appropriately described as libertinism, but sex knowledge was not the same as individual liberty, as her writings on procreation emphasized.

The second edition of Sanger’s life story, An Autobiography, appeared in 1938. There Sanger described her first cross-country lecture tour in 1916. Her standard speech asserted seven conditions of life that “mandated” the use of birth control: the third was “when parents, though normal, had subnormal children”; the fourth, “when husband and wife were adolescent”; the fifth, “when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate.” No right existed to exercise sex knowledge to advance procreation. Sanger described the fact that “anyone, no matter how ignorant, how diseased mentally or physically, how lacking in all knowledge of children, seemed to consider he or she had the right to become a parent.”

 

CONTINUE READING:  http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Justice Ginsburg, Without Her Mask, Channeling Margaret Sanger

October 23, 2012 2 comments

 

“WE DO NOT WANT WORD TO GET OUT THAT WE WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE NEGRO POPULATION.” ~Margaret Sanger, Founder Planned Parenthood

 

Justice Ginsburg Backtracks From Racist Abortion Comments

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/23/12 12:31 PM

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg caused a stir in July 2009 when she made commentsabout the Roe v. Wade abortion case that appeared racist. In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg said made it appear she supported Roe for population control reasons targeting minorities.

Roe is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that, along with Doe v. Bolton, allowed virtually unlimited abortions for any reason throughout pregnancy.

Ginsburg first advocated taxpayer funding of abortions and followed it up by saying she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious,” she said then.

Reporter Emily Bazelon then asked Ginsburg a question about what she meant and Ginsburg responded that the 1980 Harris v. McRae ruling upholding the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions, surprised her.

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong,” Ginsburg said.

Now, Bazelon has written a follow up article, in which she reports Ginsburg “made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races).”

“Emily, you know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” Ginsbug said. “I was surprised that the court went as far as it did in Roe v. Wade, and I did think that with the Medicaid reimbursement cases down the road that perhaps the court was thinking it did want more women to have access to reproductive choice. At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”

Bazelon adds:

 

I asked if she was talking about general concern in the society, as opposed to her own concern or the concern of the feminist legal community. Ginsburg said yes, and then returning to the issue of whether Congress could restrict Medicaid from covering abortion, added, “But I turned out to be wrong. Not too long after Roe v. Wade”—in Harris v. McRae— “the Supreme Court said it was OK to deny Medicaid funding for even therapeutic abortions.”

I asked if the idea of a link between concern about population growth and the court’s rulings on abortion turned out to be wrong. Justice Ginsburg said yes, stating the obvious: After all Roe v. Wade and the decisions that came after it are rooted in the right to privacy.

The history lesson is this: There was a feminist women’s rights argument for legal abortion in the 1970s, which the Supreme Court accepted in Roe v. Wade. And there was a separate and distinct argument about preventing population growth by being pro-abortion, made by groups like Zero Population Growth, which the court did not accept, not in Roe and not later. Justice Ginsburg herself has never made a population control argument for abortion. These were two different rationales promoted by two different movements. Justice Ginsburg touched on this today as well. She said that in the 1970s, when the ACLU women’s rights project sought funding from the Rockefeller Foundation—one of the groups worrying about overpopulation—the foundation “was not interested in the women’s rights business.”

Justice Ginsburg also made it clear today that the issue she had in mind when we spoke in 2009 was concern about population growth among all classes (and races).

 

Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/23/justice-ginsburg-backtracks-from-racist-abortion-comments/

Is America Working Toward ZERO GNP/GDP? Ask Czar Holdren.

September 27, 2012 3 comments

obama’s Science and Technology Czar John Holdren has stated that he’s in favor of zero population growth but also zero economic growth. (Czar Holdren has no formal science training.) He WANTS a zero GNP/GDP, and here’s one of the quotes from his book, Ecoscience:

“Population, Resources and Environment was, it is now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it? Why should we not strive for zero economic growth as well as zero population growth.”

 

They’ve got the population “problem” covered with their mass murder of innocent children via the racist, eugenics planned {anti}parenthood abortion chain.

“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”  ~Margaret Sanger, Founder of planned parenthood

 

U.S. 2Q GDP Growth Revised Down to 1.3%

Marxists obama and lisa jackson’s RAMPANT EPA Abuse – Threatening World Food Supply

May 16, 2012 1 comment

During a famine, Chairman Mao was told the people were starving.  His response was, “Teach them to eat less“. 

10 million died that year.

Several marxists within the obama regime have professed their admiration, respect for and alignment with beliefs and actions of Chairman Mao.  

Does this not concern you?

Today’s EPA, led by another of obama’s marxist thugs, Lisa “FAT-FINGERED, DOUBLE-WIDE SLOB”  Jackson, has done more to destroy food security and safety in this Nation than any other individual or entity in the history of the world. 

Does this not concern you?

EPA Regulations Threaten World Food Security

EPA biotech food regulations will undermine food security worldwide.

Sixty members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, comprising many of America’s most eminent biological scientists, and including Nobel Laureates Dr. James Watson and Dr. Gunter Blobel, have written to the US Environmental Protection Agency expressing  their concerns about recent EPA moves to change biotech crop regulations.

Professor Nina Fedoroff of the Pennsylvania State University is the lead protest letter signatory.

The biotech crop regulation changes mooted by the EPA were announced March 2011 in the Federal Register here (pdf).

Food Supply Threatened!
Scientist co-signatories on the Fedoroff Letter say that the EPA is going down a troublesome path that is not based on science, and which will frustrate and delay innovations needed to provide farmers with better cropping methods.  Because of the delays and unneeded extra cost burdens such a  policy shift would create, it would surely undermine global food security.

Read more at Biofortified …

READ MORE ABOUT LISA JACKSON’S EPA ABUSE

Eugenics Freak and obama’s Radical, Zero GDP Advocating Genocidal Czar john holdren Previously Advised MITT ROMNEY!!!


[TWG NOTE:  I want to know what that E-V-I-L eugenics freak, czar john holdren, has been cooking up for us in the dark crevices of our White House.... and I suppose I'm not too surprised that romney has czar hodren's hoofprints all over him.

Czar John Holdren co-wrote a book in 1977, Ecoscience, with Paul and Ann Ehrlich, the eugenics gurus. Population control, a book that mused openly about mass sterilizations, forced abortions, putting sterilants in the water to control the population. It's the fact that his ideological mentors, including one of the top international eugenics members most renowned, again, for promoting these same ideas of social engineering through the guise of "science" that basically amounts to eugenics and taking away babies from "undesirables". He was paying homage to this mentor as recently as two years ago at one of the most prominent science gatherings of the country, the AAAS gathering, and there has been little, if any public questioning about it.

Some of obama's czars have things that are so frightening in their past that no American would approve-- if these guys were being appointed by George W. Bush, the left would be on fire with this. They'd be calling them MONSTERS (as I am).

Apparently not only was he in favor of zero population growth but also zero economic growth. He wanted a zero GDP, and here's one of the quotes in the book that he co-wrote, Ecoscience:

"Population, Resources and Environment was, it is now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it? Why should we not strive for zero economic growth as well as zero population growth."

Czar John Holdren's mentor, Harrison Brown, saw the world population as ”a pulsating mass of maggots”. Holdren himself describes the world population as "useless eaters".

In a section on "Involuntary Fertility Control," Holdren and the other authors discuss various "coercive" means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water.

Here's a few excerpts:

"The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems."

"To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...

"...this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Later, he concludes, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

“To date, (1977) there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Czar Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given his current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. Keep in mind that this book (Ecoscience) was written in 1977.]

 

 

Romney adviser? Radical Obama czar

‘Why … a reasonable person would pick such a man … is beyond us’

A radical Obama adviser who at one point forecast that the world would undergo famines during the 1970s when hundreds of millions of people would starve and later guessed that 1 billion people will die in “carbon-dioxide-induced famines” before 2020 once served as an adviser to GOP presidential hopeful Gov. Mitt Romney.

Word comes in a report in Investors Business Daily, which said, “Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, but no couple in our view is more bizarre than when John Holdren, now President Obama’s assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy.”

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE

From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite and the United Nations TYRANTS.

October 27, 2011 2 comments

[TWG NOTE: IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED BY THIS, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!]

obama’s eugenics freak, Czar John Holdren. WHAT I HELL HAS THIS EVIL MONSTER BEEN COOKING UP FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS?

 

********************************************************

The American Dream
October 27, 2011
The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day.  On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time.  But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”.  In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility.  In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite.  Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less).  To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.
As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.
In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween.  Perhaps they want to highlight how “scary” it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as “the festival of death”.
In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.
Today, “sustainable development” has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.
So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing “sustainable development”?
Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.
For example, the first of the “new 10 commandments” on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities.  For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Piankaonce wrote the following….

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more “politically correct”.  They tend to use terms such as “sustainable development” and “reduction of fertility rates” and “quality of life” when discussing the need to reduce our population.
As 7 Billion Day has approached, there have been articles popping up in major publications all over the globe that are advocating increased population control measures.  Of course in the western world such measures are always framed as being “voluntary”, but that is the way that they always introduce things like this.  Once enough people get on board with the “voluntary” population control measures they will become “mandatory”.
So now that you are aware of some of the buzzwords that are used, check out what has been written on some of the biggest news websites in the world recently….
Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN….

“The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet’s resources are sustained for future generations?
“How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?”

For Sachs, one of the “keys” to sustainable development is the “stabilization” of the global population….

“The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well.”

In a recent article for the Guardian, Roger Martin stated that all of the problems that humanity is facing would be easier to solve if less people were running around the planet….

“…all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.”

He also says that if we reduce the population, it will mean better lives for all the rest of us….

“On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

But is that really the case?
Of course not.
There has been tremendous human suffering all throughout history.  If we eliminated 90 percent of the global population it would not suddenly usher in some kind of “golden age”.
But many among the global elite are truly convinced that we are spoiling “their planet” and they don’t want so many of us around anymore.  Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as “useless eaters”.
This all may sound quite bizarre to many of you, but this is the kind of stuff that is being taught in colleges and universities across the western world.
In fact, you are starting to see an increasing number of people in the western world actually suggest that we adopt a “one-child policy” such as China has.  For example, the following is from an opinion piece that appeared in the National Post….

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The author of the opinion piece believes that such a “one-child policy” would reduce the global population to 3.43 billion by 2075….

The intelligence behind this is the following:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

This is the kind of stuff that a lot of these people sit around and think about all day long.
They are obsessed with death and with reducing the population as rapidly as possible.  They see us as a “plague” that is ravaging the planet, and they believe that by getting rid of us they would actually be saving the earth.
Due to public opinion, population control advocates have to tread lightly in the western world.  But where they can get away with it, they are not afraid to be very forceful.
I have already discussed the horrific one-child policy in China.  As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this policy can be absolutely brutal….

“Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted.”

If you don’t believe something like this can ever happen in the western world, you might want to think again.
Limitations on child births are already showing up in popular television shows.  For example, a new show on Fox called Terra Nova portrays the future of the earth as a living hell due to overpopulation.  People in the future can hardly breathe the air due to overwhelming pollution and a strict “two-child policy” is rigidly enforced.
The family featured in Terra Nova is able to go through a portal to a prehistoric world that is 85 million years in the past.  In this “new world”, humans have set up a wonderful new socialist society where everyone is provided for and where “green technology” is helping them to avoid making the “mistakes” of the past.
Unfortunately, socialist utopias such as the one portrayed on Terra Nova only exist in works of fiction.
Instead, what happens most of the time in real life is that the “good intentions” of social planners devolve into absolute tyranny when put into practice.
For example, just check out what a recent National Geographic article said happened when social planners in India tried to aggressively reduce birth rates in India in the 1970s….

The Indian government tried once before to push vasectomies, in the 1970s, when anxiety about the population bomb was at its height. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay used state-of-emergency powers to force a dramatic increase in sterilizations. From 1976 to 1977 the number of operations tripled, to more than eight million. Over six million of those were vasectomies. Family planning workers were pressured to meet quotas; in a few states, sterilization became a condition for receiving new housing or other government benefits. In some cases the police simply rounded up poor people and hauled them to sterilization camps.

How would you feel if you were rounded up and hauled off to a sterilization camp?
Sterilization programs (most of the time they are “voluntary”) are in full force all over the globe.  Much of the time they are sponsored and funded by the United Nations.  The global elite are absolutely obsessed with getting women to have less babies.
That is one reason why abortion is so very important to them.
Recently, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control….

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

The elite love to use terms such as “fertility management” and “family planning”, but what they really intend is for there to be less pregnancies and more abortions so that the population will not grow as quickly.
They certainly do not intend to empower women to have more children.
This agenda was also very much reflected when the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief asked this shocking question….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

Now who in the world gave the UN the right to be trying to “accelerate fertility decline” for women in poor countries?
But to many in the global elite, trying to get women to have less babies makes all the sense in the world.  In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full“, Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement….

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?

These people honestly and truly believe this stuff.
Unfortunately, this agenda is even represented in the highest levels of our own government.
Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

The following are 8 more quotes that show the mindset that a lot of these population control advocates have….
#1 Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#2 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#3 David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#4 Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#5 Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#6 David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#7 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#8 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

When you believe that the earth has way too many people, human life becomes cheap, and abortion becomes a way to get rid of undesirables.
According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, thousands of “abnormal” babies are now being selectively aborted in the UK each year….

Thousands of pregnancies were aborted last year for ‘abnormalities’ including 500 for Down’s syndrome, new figures reveal.
In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the foetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.

In a world that is “overpopulated”, babies that are not “perfect” become more “disposable” than ever.
In fact, the truth is that the population control agenda and the “abortion rights movement” have been inseparably linked for decades.  Those that are obsessed with “overpopulation” view abortion as a very necessary method of birth control, and one of their main goals is to expand access to “reproductive health care” to as many women around the globe as possible.
But in the end, our “voluntary” actions are not going to be nearly enough to reduce the population and most population control advocates realize that.  Many of them are openly calling for a “benevolent” global authority to take charge to lead us through the “necessary” transition that is ahead.
In a previous article, I described the type of world that the radical population control advocates see for our future….

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world.  In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda”.  An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity.  What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them.  Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education”.  The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.

This is the endgame for the radical green agenda.  In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.
But is that the kind of a future that anyone would actually want to live in?  Would anyone actually choose to live in a future where bureaucrats micromanage our lives for the good of the environment?
Personally, I think that the 7 billion people on earth would do just fine if they were given a lot more liberty and freedom to live their own lives as they see fit.
But letting people decide how to run their own lives is anathema to those that have bought into the population control agenda of the global elite.
They actually believe that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that they need to tell us what to do for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet.
This patronizing approach should truly sicken all freedom-loving Americans.
So what do you think of the population control agenda of the global elite?
Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion….

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,546 other followers

%d bloggers like this: