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.
Really?
Yes, really.
Now keep in mind, this is Barack Obama's number one science advisor.
Holdren advocated these insane proposals in a 1977 textbook entitled "Ecoscience", which he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich (who worked in the Bush administration) and Anne Ehrlich.
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.
However, once one blogger posted pictures of the pages of Holdren's book up on the Internet, people started to realize that Holdren actually did write these sick things.
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.
In an article entitled "What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know", Pianka makes the following startling statements:
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.
On May 5th, 2009, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Jr., Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other ultra-wealthy Americans gathered for a super secret meeting in Manhattan. Reportedly the goal of the meeting was to evaluate how their combined wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population.
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.
In fact, the chair of the U.K. government's Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, said that parents who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an "unbearable" burden on the environment.
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."
Some "environmental activists" have even gone to the absolute extreme by forming "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which seeks to reduce the presence of humanity on earth completely.
Their motto is: “May we live long and die out”.
Doesn't that sound wonderful?
So is what they are saying true?
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.....
*Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers will be sentenced to take contraception for a period of two years, according to a new bill before the Dutch parliament.
*In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many childrenand that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.
*In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this.
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.
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I’m not talking about the obvious environmental and resource issues. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the overpopulation debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
Have you seen the new film: Maafa21. That well documented DVD is astounding proving the eugenic and racist roots of Planned Parenthood and abortion. It is a MUST SEE for everyone no matter what you view of abortion is. See how African Americans are the target of these population control groups and why Planned Parenthood leads the charge. See original quotes, documents and clipping on the collaboration between the American Eugenics Society, Margaret Sanger ( Founder of Planned Parenthood) , many of the board of Planned Parenthood and the United States Government – both Republicans and Democrats who have worked systematically to target these groups that Ginsburg speaks about today ! The Maafa ( Tragedy) is not over. Watch how the racist attitudes regarding slavery led to Eugenics and to birth control and abortion today. Get a sneak peak of Maafa21 here: http://www.maafa21.com
Sorry, but your quite right, I do agree with population control.
Human Beings are a cancer on this earth.
I’ve quoted those quotations of Holdren on Jeremiah Films page Discerning Science • Origins • Darwin Eugenics
pete murphy and julie carol are sick persons who defy their creator….the lord commanded us to be fruitful and multiply because we are created in the image and likeness of god….
…unfortunately we have failed to do that and world population is forecasted to decline starting c. 2050….europe is already de-populating….america would have begun if not for massive illegal immigration….
if julie carol truly believed what she said she would immediately commit suicide and kill as much of her family as possible…as it stands she has not done that and exposes herself for the complete fraud and hater that she is…
the world is capable of supporting much larger populations than it currently has….the hoax of global warming and population explosion are ruses by the elite to destroy the plebeians of whom you are a member absent sufficient education or wealth….
obama supports murdering babies and adults…his voting record as senator speaks powerfully for it as the ONLY bill he ever worked for was to make it a crime to assist babies who survived abortion.
For thousands of years the human population has hovered at just under 1 billion with people most of the time free to have as many children as they wanted. But the population did not grow because only a fraction of children born ever lived long enough to become parents themselves. Life for nearly all was “nasty, short and brutal”. In the last two hundred years many things have changed with the discoveries of new medicines, fertilizers and energy production. For many of us in the west things have improved beyond recognition and we no longer live such a brutal way of life but are concerned to see perhaps some sixth of our fellow human beings failing to make the progress we have enjoyed. There are many reasons why this is so, corrupt governments and war are an obvious cause. But when one studies cases in Africa for instance, it is clear that the opportunities that held so much promise at the time of independence have been squandered, by ruling elites plundering natural resources to lead the life of the super rich, but also by the relentless growth in population which are overwhelming even the most dedicated governments . Africa has achieved a growth rate of about 2.5% over the last 50 years, despite wars and corruption, and much higher over some periods. This would have been enough to triple the standard of living there, but this has all been consumed and more by the size of the population increase.
The situation there now looks bleak, after 50 years the situation is worse now than at the time of independence, it appears that having seen so little benefit from the meagre development aid so far invested, that any further investment effort will simply be dissipated in further population increase, war and corruption. In South Africa, despite massive progress in the education system, all that is happening is that the unemployed are better educated with vacancies for perhaps only 10% of school leavers. Progress is being made but the South African government has to run to stand still in the rising population tide. The situation of the bottom billion can be advanced, but the problems are enormously difficult, and population control is just one of the vital weapons that may provide some purchase on the problem. If parents can be assured of the survival of their children and of their security in old age, then they might be persuaded to contribute to the advancement of their children’s generation by acting responsibly to limit the size of their own families.
We are not animals who have to ensure the survival of their species by creating an excess of children in order to ensure sufficient survive to maximally exploit the opportunities afforded by the environment. As humans we have rights but also responsibilities and if we exercise those responsibilities we can live in dignity, but if we only focus on our right to procreate, then some of us may loose the right to a life of dignity. That is just an inevitable consequence, not a right wing plot of the elite.
Do you remember when the USA had UNDER 200 million people within its 50 states? (Hint: it was less than 50 years ago.) Now we have nearly 350 million within the same borders! That’s a 75% increase (from an already unsustainable level of 1960). Eventually the proverbial excrement is going to hit the fan; better to reduce our population VOLUNTARILY now rather than have it forced down our throats by a worldwide famine, which will surely come sooner rather than later….
Tony,
Julie Carol’s comments are absurd, but whilst Pete Carol’s may be a little unconventional he is not “sick” for pointing out that there are powerful reasons to suppose that population growth contributes to the ability of the rich elite to exploit the poor. I do not believe that God intended us to live on a planet where a tiny rich elite could live in perfect comfort whilst the vast majority were obliged to lead shallow empty lives, deprived of the opportunity to experience the richness of human existence because of the oppression and exploitation by a selfish elite. You guys really have to think this all through before you react to the kind of provocation that the material in maaf21 is bound to cause. Such material is utterly obnoxious.
However, there are also equally unworthy reasons why unrestrained population growth might be promoted. It may further the interests of a particular tribal, religious or ethnic group, particularly in unsophisticated “democracies” where election results are determined by group loyalty rather than reasoned argument. This results in a version of the prisoner’s dilemma where pursuit of self interest is self defeating and results in losses for all.
paul –
you are a magnificent sophist cum apoligist for eugenics and population control. unfortunately you fail to persuade me.
to aver that social and political inequities justify population control is the most condescending and vile tripe i could imagine.
the poor ye shall have with you always. and why is that so? it is because every social injustice is a challenge and opportunity for the privileged and affluent to apply his talents and riches to alleviate the condition of the poor – indeed that is salvation – from the lord’s mouth to your ears. it is precisely what yahushua did when he assumed corpulence to descend to earth and then into the graves to empty them all so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.
democracy is as corrupt a system of oppression in the presence of universal suffrage as is any other. obama is president not because of democratic triumph but because of plutocratic largesse and political purpose.
the lord commanded us to be fruitful and multiply without implying recklessness….but there is no human anywhere who has the wisdom to manage population control – such is the vain imaginations of arrogance and of the antichrist. humans replicate the divine image. an attack on population growth is an attack upon the creator himself and will of course yield to his judgment and triumph at armageddon.
you don’t like the poor or the mentally feeble? too bad – they are the lord’s people whom he will protect. woe to the rulers who rule unjustly and speak falsely of the lord.
the lord’s plan will proceed – interfere with it at your own peril.
Overpopulation is NOT a global problem: It is the problem of EACH country, to be solved by that country. If a country’s population has doubled in the last 20 years and it now needs international food aid to feed 10 million of its people, that country must admit that it needs something like China’s one-child family system to bring their population back to a manageable level.
The heads of state of countries needing massive food aid must be brought before the General Assembly of the UN so that this simple thing can be explained to them.
We are not united but seperated and diverted, and then we have these money systems, which turns everything upside down, and leads to massive waste of resources, quality, visdom and common sense.
We are going down backwards because of a profit-based system controlled by the few, which is not in any way in harmony with human nature!
We were not slaves originally, but because of the passification of humanity through genetic altering, manipulation, illusions and lies, we are now standing today face to face, with a conspiracy so monstrous, that we as individuals are handicapped in the shadow of that machine.
Joseph Moshe H5N1 Ukraine Plague Warning
The Baxter Scandal:
torontosun.com
bloomberg.com
reuters.com
greetings
I propose that all those infavor of population controll
by drastic measures ‘ should start with themself and their
family, – and we won’t stop them.
peace
If we, human beings, do not value human life, then what else is there that has value? The human being was created as the highest being in the physical world. Respect for human life and for all life should be our highest value. Otherwise, why should civilization go on? Couples fall in love and marry; mothers give birth and nourish their young; fathers work to support their families. Societies must be based on the principle and unifying force of love; without love, there would be selfishness and chaos. People would be motivated by fear or compulsion.
I do not see proof that there is overpopulation. There are still large areas of unpopulated land in the world. Technology is more advanced every day; through technology, more food can be grown, and there can be new sources of energy. Millions of people in the world are starving, but this is more on account of political reasons than overpopulation. There is an answer to everything, but the elite are trying to play God. We must always strive to do what is the right thing–the end never justifies the means.
The above are just some of my thoughts.
The only problem i have with drastic population control is it returning the world to the pre-ww1/2 period, and whats to stop those type of conflicts happening again?
To my knowledge there has never been any case where mass starvation occured as a result of overpopulation. In every case that I can think of there has been a natural disaster, war or political factor that were the key. If there are any examples to the contrary, then feel free to advise me.
The proponents of population control are no different than the mindless
Neanderthal Nazi Germans who ruined Europe in the name of the “Herrenvolk.” The so-called global elites simply hate human beings. Ironically, they are totally self-destructive because their parasitical existence is based on the exploitation of the masses which they despise.
Ted Turner, Al Gore, Prince Philip, David Rockefeller and their “academic” stooges like Elrich and Holdren are mean-spirited degenerates who have no sense of humanity about them. They make life miserable for the rest of us by hoarding wealth that was often acquired by highly questionable means. Their self-serving egotism is the true enemy of “mother Earth.”
Jesus, please come back soon! The world has gone mad!
Shawn, there are not “350 million” people in America. The true figure is 305 million (1/2010) Huge difference. This is the problem with these people, they do not even have their *facts* correct.
Eugenist should lead by example.
That is how a craze is started put the brainwashing in the media (repeated a million times) and suddenly everyone wants it, does it, or wears it!