population-control

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.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments