It is becoming increasingly obvious that the world community will accept no peace plan for Israel that does not include a Palestinian state. In fact, at this point the creation of a Palestinian state is a foregone conclusion in most diplomatic circles. The only question seems to be what the exact dimensions of that state are going to be. The Scriptures have long foretold the division of the land of Israel in the last days, but to see it play out in front of our eyes is absolutely stunning. Virtually the entire world is united behind the idea that a Palestinian state is a great idea, and the pressure for Israel to accept one will continue to grow in the coming days.
Have you ever heard of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child? If you are an American parent, it could soon dramatically affect your parental rights. A new optional protocol has been approved that will create an international tribunal that will receive complaints from individual children. Parental rights under the U.S. Constitution will not trump the ruling of this tribunal. The implications of this are staggering. For example, if a "children's rights" group finds out that you are spanking your child, they can file a complaint with this U.N. tribunal on your child's behalf, and before you know it your child could be taken away from you forever.
The ironic thing is that negotiations for this new protocol were spearheaded by the nation of Maldives, which has a horrific record of human rights. When Maldives signed and ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child back in the early nineties, it specifically rejected the religious freedom section found in the CRC. You see, the constitution of the Maldives requires that all citizens be Muslims. So when they "opted out" of the religious freedom portion of the document, they explained themselves this way: "The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims."
Regardless, due to the efforts of the Maldives and others, this new protocol has been approved.
So exactly what will this new protocol do?
Well, according to one Maldivian news agency, the "protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), will create a procedure whereby children who are being abused or their representatives (such as national child protection NGOS, lawyers, and doctors) could seek assistance from international human rights protection mechanisms when domestic institutions are failing to offer protection."
These words are chilling.
Can you imagine some radical leftists coming in to your home and dragging your kid before an international tribunal just because you were trying to raise your child in a Biblical manner?
It could happen.
We didn't think our health care system would ever be socialized either.
The good news is that this new protocol is optional.
The bad news is that Barack Obama is in the White House and the Democrats control Congress.
The Obama administration has publicly announced its desire to see the U.S. ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In addition, those spearheading the push for the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to be adopted in the United States have announced their support for this new optional protocol.
So the threat to parental rights is real.
Please share this information with as many Christian parents as you can.
The world is dramatically changing and international institutions are taking over.
Now is the time to stand up and say something about it. Later will be too late.
It seems with each passing week, the European Union bureaucracy gets even more power. Now, the European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favor of a new tax on financial transactions which will be paid directly to Brussels. Of course this new tax could still be vetoed by one or more of the national governments in the EU, but this is still a stunning development.
Taxes directly levied by EU headquarters?
The European Union is very quickly becoming "The United States Of Europe".
As we reported previously, the brand new "President of Europe", Herman Van Rompuy, has been pushing the notion of a "Euro tax" that will go directly to the European Union. Needless to say, he must be delighted by this move by the European Parliament.
As students of Bible prophecy, we understand that all of this centralization of power will one day culminate in a world government. So we are likely to see even more moves towards shifting power to regional "unions" and world governmental bodies as time moves along.
But as exciting as it is to see Bible prophecy being fulfilled, we must always realize that one day the Antichrist will use the power of world government to ruthlessly persecute those who do not serve him.
Let us get the gospel out to as many people as we can now, because time is short and it will only get more difficult to spread the good news in the times ahead.
United Nations General Secretary is publicly admitting that the worldwide climate change treaty will be enforced by global government. Up until now, many have dismissed reports that the treaty being discussed in Copenhagen would represent a giant step towards world government. However, when the head of the United Nations tells an interviewer for the Los Angeles Times that "we will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this", what are we all supposed to think? In fact, a former official in the Thatcher administration, Lord Christopher Monckton, has seen a draft of the treaty being discussed and he says that it creates 700 new bureaucracies which will implement and enforce the provisions of the climate change treaty. These bureaucracies will have power to enforce the new world environmental laws that supersedes the authority of national governments around the world.
Fortunately, it appears that a formal treaty will not be signed in Copenhagen. However, Ban Ki-Moon is hopeful that a "binding political deal" will be signed.
So what is the difference between a "treaty" and a "binding political deal"?
We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year.
However, Ban Ki-Moon does expect a final climate change treaty to be signed by mid-2010.
What most people do not realize is that the treaty being discussed in Copenhagen will institute new world taxes which would transfer wealth from "rich nations" as payment for the "carbon debt" that we have accumulated.
Developed countries have political and moral responsibilities, therefore they have to do more, first of all by coming out with ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they should be prepared to provide financial support.
We have pretty good agreement on short-term, fast-track financial support in the order of $10 billion for the coming three years. When we agree on a politically binding agreement, this will have immediate operational effect, including financial support from next year.
This financial support will reportedly be ongoing for the life of the treaty.
So when will the treaty end?
Can the United States ever get out of it?
Well, reports from those who have seen the draft treaty indicate that the only way a nation can leave the treaty is if every single other nation agrees.
Now, if "developing nations" are receiving large payments from the United States every single year, how likely do you think it is for every single one of them to vote to allow the U.S. to leave the treaty?
The truth is that the treaty is structured so that the United States would be committed to it forever. According to the draft treaty being considered, no future president or Congress would be able to do anything to get the United States out of the treaty. The only way to get out of it would be a unanimous vote from every single one of the other nations.
This is the kind of deal that Barack Obama wants to lock the United States into.
The Lisbon Treaty, which came into full effect on December 1st, basically ended the national sovereignty for most European nations. Most of the important decisions for the citizens of Europe will now be made by a small group of European elitists - many of them totally unelected. But for the global elite, the consolidation of the EU is just one step towards a larger goal. You see, the ultimate desire of these elitists is to merge regional alliances such as the EU into a world government. In fact, in symbols used on official European coins, posters and artwork, the elite have sent us a message telling us exactly what they are planning to do to all of humanity - if anyone out there is willing to listen.
The picture at the top of this article is of a statue right outside EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. It is a statue of the pagan goddess Europa riding a bull. EU representatives openly acknowledge as much. According to Greek tradition, Europa (from which Europe takes it’s name) was a beautiful Phoenecian woman of high ranking who draws the attention of Zeus - the great Greek sky god. Zeus becomes so enamored with Europa that he transforms himself into the most beautiful white bull that anyone has ever seen. Europa spots this beautiful bull and climbs on top of it and suddenly the bull plunges into the sea and rapes her. Zeus then takes Europa away to Crete where he finally reveals his true identity.
One night Europa had a dream. In this dream two continents, which were in the forms of women were arguing over Europa. Asia maintained that since Europa had been born in Asia she belonged to it. The other continent, which was nameless, said that her birth was not important, that Zeus would give her to it. It was early morning, disturbed by the dream Europa did not go back to sleep. She summoned her companions, who were all daughters of nobility and of her age. It was a beautiful day and they went off gathering flowers by the sea. Zeus noticed this charming group, particularly Europa, who was the prettest [sic] of the maidens…Zeus appeared to the group as a white bull. A white bull more beautiful then any other…The bull laid down in front of Europa. She slid on to its back. Instantly, the bull charged off, plunging into the sea, and began to swim rapidly from the shore. Europa saw that a procession had joined them, Nereids riding dolphins, Triton blowing his horn, even Poseidon. From this she realized that the bull must be a god. She pleaded with him to pity her. Zeus spoke to her and explained his love. He took her to Create, where he had been raised. He promised that she would bear him many famous sons.
So what does all of this have to do with today?
Well, you see, Zeus (the bull) is associated in the Scriptures with the true master of these elitists. In Revelation 2:12-13, we read the following....
"To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. I know where you live—where Satan has his throne."
So what was so special about Pergamum?
That was where the Great Altar of Pergamum (or Pergamon) was. Wikipedia tells us that following about this altar.....
The Great Altar of Pergamon, a massive stone podium about one hundred feet long and thirty-five feet high, was originally built in the 2nd century BC in the Ancient Greek city of Pergamon (modern day Bergama in Turkey) in north-western Anatolia, 25.74 kilometers (16 miles) from the Aegean Sea. The Great Altar of Pergamon has figured in lists of the Wonders of the World.
It has long been assumed that the magnificently-scaled and opulently decorated open-air altar (it is not a temple) was dedicated to Zeus.
You see, that is why in Revelation chapter 2 Jesus said that Satan's throne was there. It was this gigantic altar of Zeus that He likely was referring to.
So by using this ancient legend as a symbol for the EU, the elitists are telling us that the plan of their master (Zeus or Satan or Lucifer) is to seduce Europe (Europa) and ultimately to dominate it.
We see this same legend promoted on coins, on posters and in artwork all throughout the EU. Some examples are posted below.....
A 2 Euro coin was released in Greece that depicts a woman riding a beast.....
In 1996, a 5 Euro Coin was released that depicted Europa riding the bull.....
To commemorate the second election of the European Parliament in 1984, a stamp was released with this same symbology.....
A cover of Der Spiegel featured a picture of a woman riding a beast carrying the EU flag with the headline: "Good Morning Europe".....
Here is a German phonecard made by the EU.....
Time Magazine published some artwork of a "United Europe" that featured Europa riding the beast.....
The photo below is a Europa statue in front of the Winston Churchill Building.....
Not only that, but other EU symbols send messages that have a very deep meaning. According to tradition, Nimrod was the one who began the building of the Tower of Babel. He also built the very first empire after Noah's flood and he tried to establish the very first world government. With that in mind, check out the EU poster below. This poster was the official poster promoting the EU Parliament before it was banned because of protests from numerous groups. Note how clearly it connects the EU with the Tower of Babel.....
By using this symbology, the EU elitists were basically saying that they wanted to complete what Nimrod started - the building of a world government.
This ties in directly with the symbology of the woman riding a beast.
You see, not only does a woman riding a beast hearken back to the legend of Zeus and Europa, it also has a direct connection to the Bible. In the book of Revelation we also read about a woman riding a beast. In Revelation 17:3 it says this.....
Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.
That beast in the book of Revelation represents the world government led by the Antichrist. By so prominently using the symbol of a woman riding the beast, the global elite are very clearly communicating that they are connected with this coming Beast system. They know what the Bible says when they use symbols like this. It seems like they are almost bragging about it.
You see, the elitists at the very top of the pyramid are hardcore Luciferians. They also know that Antichrist is coming, and they plan to serve him. They believe that they are actually going to win the end. They have confidence in their "god" just as we have confidence in our God.
Satan has deceived himself into believing that he can win this thing in the end and he has deceived his followers into believing the same thing. Such a thing seems inconceivable to Christians - but this is what hardcore Luciferians actually believe.
In fact, one thing that is common among the Luciferian global elite is a compulsion to tell us exactly what they are about to do. In this case, they are very open about the fact that not only do they intend to deceive and subjugate Europe, but they intend to do the same to all of humanity.
We live at a time when we are literally watching Bible prophecy being fulfilled right in front of our eyes. In fact, things are now happening with such lightning speed that it is hard just to keep up with it all. Recent events out of Europe are another startling indication of just how close to the last days we actually are. Not only was Herman Van Rompuy just selected to be the very first "President of Europe", but he is openly calling for a "Euro tax" that will go directly to the European Union, and he has openly declared 2009 to be "the first year of global governance". For a "President of Europe" to so quickly call for a "Euro tax" and "global governance" is absolutely stunning.
The idea for a "Euro tax" is actually not new. The European commission's head, José Manuel Barroso, has already called for a new Euro tax, and Mr. Van Rompuy says that he intends to push hard for the implementation of that proposal when he takes office in January. The proposed tax will be a European version of a "Tobin Tax" – a tax on financial transactions which was already proposed by Gordon Brown as a solution to the international banking crisis.
Mr. Van Rompuy expressed his support for this Euro tax during a private speech at a recent meeting of the Bilderberg group. All meetings of the Bilderberg group are supposed to be secret, but fortunately details of Van Rompuy's speech got out.
"The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources."
This new Euro tax could potentially show up on all shopping and gas station receipts. Many observers wonder how it will affect anti-EU sentiment when consumers start seeing a European tax show up on their shopping receipts.
But not only is Van Rompuy pushing for a European tax, he is also openly championing global government. In fact, during a recent speech he declared 2009 to be the "first year of global governance" and that the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty will be "another step towards the global management of our planet".
What in the world?
Since when did anyone agree to the global management of the planet?
But the Scriptures tell us that one day a world government will exist.
Now Mr. Van Rompuy seems very excited to do whatever he can to push us towards that. Posted below is his full quote about global government, and beneath that you can watch a video of him making these comments during a recent speech.....
"2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet."
The reality is that these events are just another step towards the revived Roman Empire that the prophet Daniel told us would one day come. One day the Antichrist will use "global governance" to force "everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)
If you do not know about what the Bible says about the last days, we encourage you to read the rest of this site and to learn about the amazing prophecies being fulfilled in this generation. But it is not enough just to know about the amazing prophecies that are being fulfilled. In order to make it through the times ahead and to have eternal life after they are over, you need to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. If you would like to know more about how you can have that personal relationship, we would encourage you to check out this article which we recently posted on a sister site.
The vast majority of average Americans never spend much time thinking about things like "population control" or "eugenics", but for the ultra-wealthy of the global elite and for the politicians that serve them, population control and eugenics are issues of the highest priority, and in fact it would be difficult to overstate the sick obsession that these elitists have with reducing the population of the planet.
Most of the time this sick obsession with population control does not make headlines, but a couple of recent news events has brought these issues back to the forefront once again. The first involved Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In an absolutely stunning interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that the elite do not want to have around:
"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."
Now in what kind of sick world is it EVER acceptable to use the phrase "populations that we don't want to have too many of"?
That has got to be one of the most offensive statement made by any public figure in recent memory.
Yet the mainstream media has mostly let is pass without objection.
Fortunately, at least one member of Congress took notice. Representative Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, gave a stirring speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives denouncing Ginsburg’s comment. If you have not seen his one minute speech addressing this yet, then you definitely need to watch this video:
Unfortunately, Ginsberg's comments are hardly an isolated case. The reality is that the top levels of government are filled with officials who are obsessed with population issues.
For example, John P. Holdren, Barack Obama's top science advisor co-authored a book in 1977 in which he advocated mass sterilization using the food and water supply, mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, forced abortions for American couples trying to have too many children and a global police force to enforce population control.
Now keep in mind, this is Barack Obama's number one science advisor.
When rumors of Holdren's book first began to surface, they were quickly dismissed by many because it just seemed so inconceivable that the top science advisor to the president of the United States would advocate such bizarre ideas.
What followers are some of the more shocking quotes from Holdren's book.
On page 837, the book states that compulsory abortion is perfectly legal under the Constitution of the United States:
“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.”
On page 786, it says that single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government and that they could be forced to have abortions if the government decides that is what is best:
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
On pages 787 and 788, the book advocates the mass sterilization of humans by putting drugs in the food and water supply:
“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. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. 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.”
On pages 786 and 787, the authors discuss the involuntary sterilization of women after their second or third child:
Involuntary fertility control
“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.”
On page 838, the authors state their belief that there is nothing wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size:
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
On pages 942 and 943, the authors call for the creation of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures:
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
On page 917, the authors advocate the surrender of national sovereignty to an armed international police force:
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
It would be easy to dismiss Holdren as an eccentric nutjob, but the truth is that his views are an accurate representation of what is commonly believed among the global elite. They are obsessed with the notion that this planet is massively overpopulated, and that if strict population control measures are not implemented quickly it will have catastrophic consequences for the planet.
Scientists who advocate eugenics and radical population control are funded and promoted by the global elite. In fact, prior to becoming Obama's top science advisor, Holdren was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
The truth is that academia is littered with nutjobs such as this who want to see the vast majority of humanity wiped out. Another example of this is Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka.
First, and foremost, we must get out of denial and recognize that Earth simply cannot support many billions of people
This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.
I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
So the world "might" be able to support half a billion people?
What about all the rest of us?
Oh yeah, we apparently have to die.
But these nutjob scientists would not have the influence and positions they do if they were not funded by the ultra-wealthy global elitists who are also obsessed with population control.
There was a total news blackout by the American media of this clandestine gathering. The group reportedly met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and the president of Rockefeller University. The secret meeting supposedly so discreet that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told they were at "security briefings".
Fortunately, however, some details about the secret meeting have emerged.
According to one major U.K. newspaper, one anonymous person who attended the meeting said that "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."
The same article included some other incredibly shocking quotes about the meeting from that same anonymous source.....
"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers."
"They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming."
So the super-wealthy "big-brains" are going to come up with the answers to overpopulation and impose those answers on the rest of us?
How arrogant can they possibly be?
You know all of that money that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett donated to "charity" some time ago? Well, the reality is that a whole lot of it is going for population control programs - especially in the third world.
The reality is that this secret meeting is just another example of the sick obsession that the global elite has with population control.
Even in the western world now it seems as though there is a non-stop program to promote abortion, sterilization, family size limits, lower birth rates and other even more extreme population control measures.
Porritt also said that curbing population growth through abortion and contraception is absolutely necessary if the fight against global warming is going to be won.
And it is the "environmental movement" that is behind much of this. It is becoming increasingly popular to think of humans as a "virus" that are destroying the planet, and that what we need to do is to radically reduce the population to bring things back into balance.
For thousands of years, the freedom to marry and reproduce and to raise a family has been one of the most cherished and most basic of all human freedoms.
But now all of that is changing. Now you have governments like China that have implemented a "one child policy" and you have other governments that are starting to talk about limits on family sizes.
But even without formal government action, today there are many, particularly in the Western world, who are been convinced by government propaganda to willingly restrict their own reproductive capabilities.
For example, one 27 year old woman named Toni Vernelli told the Daily Mail why she decided to get permanently sterilized: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
Is the ballooning population of the planet a huge threat to the environment?
Do we need to implement strict population control for the good of humanity?
The truth is that the world has more than enough space and resources for everyone if the elite were not so greedy, but instead the elite are pushing the governments of the world to implement population control programs.
We have started to see some of these population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....
Did you know that American tax dollars are being spent to sterilize the women of Peru?
The reality is that the desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for centuries. Between 1798 and 1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.
The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were way too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was completely and totally wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.
Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of twisted thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most infamous quotes:
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Now keep in mind that this quote came out of the mouth of the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Unfortunately, the sick viewpoints of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die out. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world absolutely exploded in the 20th century.
U.S. environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for very strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world. He warned that if we did not implement such measures we would be facing catastrophic problems very quickly. Of course most of his dire predictions have now been documented to have been completely wrong, but his theories continue to wield a great deal of influence to this day.
Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:
"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."
Unfortunately, the philosophies of Erlich, Schiotz and other population control advocates have garnered a substantial following even among powerful members of the United States government. Just check out the following shocking quotes from Thomas Ferguson, who formerly worked in the State Department Office of Population Affairs.....
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."
“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”
Unfortunately, the quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than we have ever seen before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet. Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applaud him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.
When did it become "a good idea" to wipe out 90 to 95 percent of mankind?
Even Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth, is obsessed with reducing population:
"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species."
Are you starting to understand how the global elite sees us?
The truth is that they see us as a "flock" that must be culled from time to time.
How incredibly sick is that?
In fact, Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.
But Prince Philip is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources as well:
John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said this: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."
He also made this shocking statement: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
The infamous Club of Rome is certainly clear about who they think the "enemy" is.....
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
Mikhail Gorbachev has also weighed in on his view on overpopulation. Many were stunned when he made this shocking statement: "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."
The truth is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated".
Is this the kind of future that you anticipated for your children and your grandchildren?
A world where the human "flock" is regularly "culled" to please the global elite?
Not that it matters that the world is not even experiencing runaway population growth.
While the earth's population is indeed growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities are predicting a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years beyond that.
In fact, in Russia they are actually starting to pay people to have children because the population there has been declining too much.
But the global elite have decided that the earth should only have about 500 million people, and that they are going to have to get rid of about 90 percent of us.
And one of the truly sad things is that many of you who will read this article actually agree with the global elite. Many of you believe that we need sterilization, family size limits, forced abortion and even more draconian measures in order to avoid an environmental catastrophe.
The truth is that you have been brainwashed.
The truth is that you have been lied to.
The truth is that you have bought into a philosophy of death which completely devalues human life.
But this is what is being taught in universities all over the United States and Europe. The population control and eugenics agenda of the global elite is being being propagandized by professors, scientists and government officials who have bought into this madness.
However, what most people do not realize is that the global elite not only intend to theorize about population control and eugenics. They fully intend to radically reduce the population of the earth in their lifetimes - whether you like it or not.