Look Into It - Enviro-Eugenicists Announce Mass Die-Off

In a report published in April of 2012 by the Royal Society titled People and the Planet, the elitist UK-based society calls for massive population reduction and de-industrialization of the west. However drenched in euphemisms, the report cannot conceal its ominous undertones. Listed among its “key recommendations” the report proposes several measures similar to the one put out recently by MIT in which a drastic reduction of the population is called for in the name of “modelling” and predictions.

“How many of your support depends on lifestyles.”, Ehrlich stated. “We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”

“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”

Renowned scientist Paul Ehrlich has been in the public spotlight for half a century now. But there's a question at the heart of the story of Ehrlich's unlikely rise to prominence. A question that must be answered. Why is it that this entomologist has become such a superstar of science, received so many accolades and awards, and wielded such influence over the public conversation on population despite being so remarkably, consistently, staggeringly wrong about the issues he presumes to lecture the public on?

In a report published in April of 2012 by the Royal Society titled People and the Planet, the elitist UK-based society calls for massive population reduction and de-industrialization of the west. However drenched in euphemisms, the report cannot conceal its ominous undertones. Listed among its “key recommendations” the report proposes several measures similar to the one put out recently by MIT in which a drastic reduction of the population is called for in the name of “modelling” and predictions.

Immediately after the Royal Society released its call for more death and mega-cities, none other than Paul Ehrlich weighed in to regurgitate his own eugenic fancies. The Guardian reported that Ehrlich, who contributed to the report, eagerly endorses its conclusions. In regards to redistributing wealth, Ehrlich is quite upfront about his opinion on the matter:

“They (population and resources) multiply together. You have to deal with them together. We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away from the rich to the poor.”

“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster.Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”

“The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.”

What the Royal Society terms “systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact” is actually a rephrasing of Agenda 21’s plan to gradually de-industrialize the west as well as the creation of megacities in which the bulk of the world’s population can be locked up to make them more manageable. Or, what the Royal Society calls “the potential for urbanisation to reduce material consumption.”

In a statement put out by “Planet Under Pressure” in the run-up to the 2012 “Earth Summit” several scientists called for denser cities in order to mitigate worldwide population growth. When in doubt that UN’s Agenda 21 is not the Mein Kampf of our day, one should consider yet another in-your-face confession from yet another certified biocratic control freak.

According to an MSNBC article one of the scientists while speaking about human populations worldwide, stated:

“We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].”

Insisting the world’s population be locked up within the confounds of mega-cities, the elite realizes that if the herd is to be properly controlled walls are needed- thick walls, and by constructing these walls, the masses may be more easily led to go this or that way.

Chief scientist Michail Fragkias involved with “Planet under Pressure” told MSNBC that “the answer (to population growth) is denser cities.” (Article Continued Below)

Be afraid! Be very afraid! A “startling” “new” “scientific” report that “totally confirms” all of The Club of Rome’s fearmongering over The Limits to Growth! . . . But does it really confirm what it’s reported to confirm? And what are the limits to growth, anyway? Join James for the longest and most in-depth edition of Questions For Corbett yet as he does a deeeeeeep dive on The Club of Rome’s infamous reports, its celebrated “vindication,” the truth about overpopulation, and the future of life on earth.

Do you think the world is overpopulated? Are you worried that having a baby would contribute to climate change? Deep down, do you hate humanity? If so, then it's time to stop swallowing the propaganda of the anti-human death cult and to realize that creation is our ultimate act of rebellion agains the elitists and eugenicists.

Overpopulation fearmonger Paul Ehrlich is back on the press junket trying to drum up panic in the name of his depopulation obsession. Tonight on the program we listen to a 2010 interview with Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com refuting Ehrlich and his sky-is-falling pseudoscience

Works Cited:

The United Nations is holding its Biodiversity Conference in Paris this week to further define how mankind should co-exist with nature. The original Global Biodiversity Assessment from 1995 called for a sustainable level of human beings on planet earth: 1-3 Billion people. The GBA was the document that gave substance to Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st Century, produced in 1992 at the first Earth Summit in Rio. This what THEY said, not me.

Stories covered today

Please, if you can, help support us on Patreon. We're working on our second feature-length film now. Anything and everything helps. https://www.patreon.com/truthstreammedia

One media outlet recently described the highly funded and organized burgeoning international climate protest movement as, "based deeply on contemporary research and rigorous analysis of what has made social and revolutionary movements successful throughout history and while organised on flexible scale-uppable decentralised principles borne out of silicon valley start-ups, the movement also has another aspect deep in its core..."

“If cities can develop in height rather than in width that would be much more preferable and environmentally not as harmful”, Fragkias said.

People who know anything about history know that the creation of mega-cities in which the masses may be rounded up and enclosed, is identical to the Nazi principle of the “ghetto” as a means of managing the masses. Every student of history may also know what happens to those masses shortly after.

Some of the organizers of “Planet under Pressure” are founding their plea on the notion that we (as humanity) have entered the “Anthropocene”: a new geological era in which humans- not natural conditions- are the main drivers of geological and meteorological processes. Citing a website devoted to this concept, Martin Rees of the Royal Society stated at the conference:

“This century is special in the Earth’s history. It is the first when one species — ours — has the planet’s future in its hands,” reported the AFP news agency. “We’ve invented a new geological era: the Anthropocene.”, he stated.

This echoes yet another scientist, a professor at the University of Colorado, who in recent times also mentioned this new era in relation to a call for population control when he stated:

“Scientists now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering in a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earth can only be described as interspecies genocide.”

In addition the professor said: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.”

The call for compact cities, filled to the brim with humans, is part of the UN’s depopulation agenda. Within these proposed mega-cities humans will be allowed to use RFID technology so they can be kept in check. The rest of the world, the “countryside” as one of the scientists told MSNBC, is reserved for the elite.

Besides the call for denser cities in a, what Ehrlich calls, “battery chicken world”, the Royal Society report from April of this year also stressed that “reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.”

“Reproductive health” is a broad-sweep term including abortions (both pre- and post-natal), ant-fertility drugs and other means to cut fertility. The report clearly rehashes the old mantra that people are detrimental to the earth, and therefore human numbers should be reduced if the earth is to survive. Although the report asserts that “history has shown population growth can slow down without coercion”, it continues by saying that “timing is of the essence.”

“The sooner high fertility rates decline the sooner populations will peak. The policies and investments that are made in the coming decades will influence whether population moves towards the upper or lower boundary of population projected for the rest of the century”, the report goes on to say.

Another key recommendation: “Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.”

The report also stressed that education should be entirely brought under control of the UN:

“In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world’s young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.”

In 2004, emeritus professor of physics at California State University, Roger Dittmann, stated that all policies related to Agenda 21 should be pursued with the aim of worldwide population reduction and population control. “The Big Die Off,” the professor eagerly added, “has already begun.”

“Economic (and other) development that leads to reduction in population toward an optimum level for maximization of the quality of life, i.e. environmentally benign development that reduces the birth rate,” Dittmann explains on page 14 of his lecture notes.

Furthermore, the emeritus professor writes bluntly that (capitals by Dittmann) “The Big Die Off has already begun (page 17).”

In order to facilitate such a massive “die-off,” the professor proposes (page 18) global governance to make sure the directives will be universally applied:

“Since this is a global effort, it requires global organization, both governmental and popular,” he writes.

Dittmann’s specific remark concerning this “big die off” echoes Paul Ehrlich in response to the Royal Society’s report. Veiled threats from the most vicious of neo-eugenicists the world has ever known. I don’t have to remind readers that all this talk of death and mass-death is becoming more common every day. Only recently I highlighted the case of University College’s Emeritus Professor John Guillebaud, patron of the UK-based “Population Matters”, who depicted among other things a machine-gun, a hospital bed, and a knife dripping with blood, as examples of “natural” population control as opposed to “artificial” methods such as contraception and family planning.

Back to Dittmann’s 2004 presentation. In his notes he also calls for a new “International Scientific Order” to make sure the entire scientific community is armed and ready to implement worldwide population reduction. Dittmann:

“Not only do people require organization about their (multiple) identities (including professional, scholarly, and scientific), they need international, even supranational affiliation, facing a common adversary.”

This common adversary-remark is completely in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1993 The First Global Revolution in which the authors state:

“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….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.”

To illustrate that in the case of professor Roger Dittmann we are not dealing with some isolated mad scientist in a cellar-lab, his own resume will suffice:

“He served on the Executive Board of the World Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW), in which he has been active since 1967, and has represented the WFSW at the United Nations. He presides over the U.S. affiliate of the WFSW, the U.S. Federation of Scholars and Scientists, founded in 1937 as the American Association of Scientific Workers, which is also affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He has also served as Chair of the Southern California Federation of Scientists, on the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, as well as on the Executive Board of the Pacific Division of the AAAS. He has extensive international contacts and experience, including working with UNESCO.”

For those who think that the entire population reduction-mantra is somehow the end result of rigorous scientific thinking, the calculated, incremental and synchronized move toward a brave new world should inform them about its true origins. UNESCO’s founder, Vice President of the Eugenics Society and foremost transhumanist Julian Huxley, explained why global governance is crucial in his UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet.

Book [Ecoscience] he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population

In this interview, Dr. Tarpley reviews the writings of John P. Holdren, the current White House science advisor. This interview conclusively exposes scientific elite's true agenda, world-wide genocide and the formation of a global government to rule.

Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming, a radical idea once dismissed out of hand, is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, according to
the president's new science adviser.

One of America’s leading population control advocates denies holding a nasty Eugenics creed.

Compulsory abortion. Under-the-skin birth control implants. Government authorized reproduction. A Planetary Regime to regulate the population and ration food and resources. A sterilant added to water supplies or food staples. The expansion of mandatory family planning and population restrictions. An earth teetering on the edge of destruction. All of this and more is discussed frankly in the 1977 textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, written jointly by John P. Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and his wife Anne Ehrlich.

Tireless activist Luke Rudkowski, founder of WeAreChange.org, confronted John P. Holdren, the top science advisor in the White House, about some of those statements as they appear in that tract during a Q and A session.

From the podium, Holdren cuts off the question, saying, “I beg your pardon, I did not advocate any of that… I never held those beliefs. The book in question described in a chapter surveying all the things that had been suggested, those kinds of suggestions included. They were abhorrent and would never be embraced, should not be embraced. I’m kind of tired of that question. Folks should go back and look at that book.”

Holdren is partially justified in claiming that his book’s chapter is simply surveying other beliefs, but his claim of being separate from such thinking is ludicrous. Ecoscience contains a veritable anthology of the major population control efforts of the 20th Century, including radical plans for depopulation, often controversial contraceptive innovations, thorough efforts at instituting “family planning” programs in developing countries through United Nations and private philanthropic guidance and demands to curtail consumption and limit resources.

John P. Holdren, current White House “Science Czar” (technically the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy), has been a prominent figure in the larger Eugenics movement, dealing in population, environment and climate change matters, for most of his life.

Backed by major universities, endowments and foundations, his brand of science has been sponsored to promote radical approaches to curtailing human behavior, and with it, handing over more power to the self-appointed elite directing society.

Holdren is perhaps best known for his collaboration with Paul Ehrlich, the author of the 1968 Population Bomb, which portrayed an alarmist view of a population explosion exhausting earth’s resources and destroying life. The two have been frequent writing partners and were definitive, along with the Club of Rome (and their key publication Limits to Growth), in metering out a re-branded Eugenics based upon metrics about human consumption (a.k.a. “footprint”) and theories about earth’s “carrying capacity.”

In essence, these groups popularized a neo-Malthusian case for individual austerity and limits of some kind on the number of children families can have. For instance, the pair noted in a 1969 article on over-population, “If the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

While Holdren and Ehrlich may not have personally backed every initiative presented in their 1977 textbook, including such radical and draconian proposals demonstrates their larger position in supporting any/all population control measures that can establish acceptance. The larger Eugenics movement has always had more radical extremists, like Paul Popenoe, that make tamer proposals look reasonable. Yet, all tend towards the common goal of global control over reproduction and most find a common source of funding amongst the wealthy foundations of elite robber barons, monopolists and banking elite (which is directly acknowledged by Holdren & Ehrlich in the text).

Some proposals, like the one calling for sterilants in the water, are ostensibly rejected in the text, with this example finding no practical way to avoid tainting livestock supplies while targeting humans. However, a clear direction is marked out in the chapter, with sub-headers like “Towards a Planetary Regime” indicating the dominant trend towards more comprehensive authority over individual family choices.

Front Page Magazine took on Holdren’s legacy in 2009 in response to his White House appointment, labeling him “Obama’s Biggest Radical.” Ben Johnson makes the case that far from rejecting some of the more extreme measures discussed in the book, the authors “hide behind the passive voice.” Johnson writes about this in relation to discussing compulsory abortion:

Webster Tarpley analyzes the positions of John P. Holdren and Paul Ehrlich in the Ecoscience text, in their extensive publications and in the context of the larger Eugenics movement:

Zombietime blog has emphasized some of the more shocking quotes that Ecoscience discusses, which the larger neo-Malthusian movement have discussing and, indeed, working towards establishing as real practices:

• Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“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.”

• Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“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.”

• Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“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.”

• Page 786-7: 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. “

• Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”

• Page 838: Nothing is 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?”

• Page 942-3: 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.”

• Page 917: We will need to surrender 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.”

• Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
” Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

• Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

Ecoscience Co-Author Paul Ehrlich Maintains Global Population Control Advocacy in Recent Interview

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
December 13, 2009

In response to questions raised by University World News, biologist and co-author of Ecoscience, Paul R. Ehrlich is still calling for “interventions to decrease birth rates”.

As current Bing professor of Population Studies and President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, Ehrlich is living proof that old habits die hard- and eugenic habits die even harder.

After his famous book The Population Bomb was published in 1968, he has fallen somewhat in credibility for the world kept on turning and mankind is apparently still around, despite of the doom predicted. In 1969 Ehrlich predicted that ““smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” and “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people”.

Nevertheless, despite Ehrlich’s prediction of the total collapse of human society if the population would continue to rise, after 40 years the man still maintains his point, this time pointing to “climate change” as the consequence of human activity. In the interview of December 13th, Ehrlich states:

“The population explosion will come to an end. The only question is whether it will do so by humanity balancing its interventions to decrease death rates with interventions to decrease birth rates, or whether the death rate will soar.”

Malthus nor Mao Zedong could have said it better themselves. Speaking of China- and specifically, China’s coercive one-child policies- Ehrlich maintains:

“India and China are both vastly overpopulated by the simple standard that they are living on (and exhausting) their natural capital – agricultural soils, ground water, and the biodiversity that runs our life-support systems. Until and unless we can humanely begin to shrink the global population, following the lead of over-consuming and over-populated European nations, the future seems grim.”

“Humanely shrink the global population”, says Ehrlich. He is wise enough to edit the word “humanely” in if he is to avoid the same indignation that befell his friend John Holdren, who co-authored Ecoscience with him in 1977. There is of course no humane way of shrinking the global population. Only a planetary authority, enforcing such a shrinkage, could get the job done. And it is exactly such a planetary regime Mr. Ehrlich called for, together with current chief science advisor to President Obama.

In the following fragment, Paul Ehrlich advocates the creation of a “global system” to create a “behavioral change”. Ehrich: “We don’t have any international effort to say, you know, how are we behaving. We have global problems, why don’t we have a global system to fix it.”

Under threat of some worldwide virus taking hold to finish off a large part of the world population, Ehrlich advocates global interventions to decrease birthrates. One could argue that Ehrlich advocates only voluntary actions to make sure the birthrates do not increase, were it not that he himself implies such voluntary actions are not sufficient:

“Most unfortunately”, Ehrlich asserts, “over the past few decades the principal population issues considered by activists and foundations have been of reproductive health and rights. Those, of course, are very important but they will be totally moot if overpopulation, helping to drive climate disruption, land-use change, ocean overharvesting, toxification of the entire planet, the increased probability of novel epidemics, and greater threats of resource wars – especially a nuclear one – has not abated.”

Well, it seems Mr. Ehrlich will have his way with humanity if the Copenhagen Treaty will have success. There is your global system, with a globally enforceable mandate- at first to impose carbon taxes upon humanity- later on to do what the eugenicists have always called and planned for: the orderly extermination of at least 80 percent of the global population.

Demonic Duo: “Back-Up Abortion”
Prevents Global Catastrophe

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
March 6, 2013

Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich at it again: “The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people”.

In a piece published March 2 titled Food insecurity will eat away at our civilization, neo-eugenicist Paul Ehrlich gives us a condensed version of his recent research endeavors, calling for “back-up abortions” to prevent what his colleague Philip Cafaro calls “interspecies genocide”. In addition, he repeats the conclusions of his recent study for the American Institute of Biological Sciences, proposing mass mind-control and increased environmental regulations.

In their recent summary, the Ehrlichs write:

“The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people. While the degree to which these steps would reduce total fertility rates is a matter of controversy, they would deliver significant social and economic benefits by making huge reservoirs of fresh brain power available to solve our problems, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing the number of unsafe abortions.”

Paul Ehrlich and his wife are busy little bees these days, publishing their death-talk in practically every scientific institution with a printing press. In their latest study for the Royal Society, endorsed by none other than Prince Charles, titled Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?, the demonic duo asserts that civilization is certain to collapse – and only a concerted global effort to reduce fertility may avert catastrophe. The Ehrlichs describe this “concerted global effort” as a monumental task:

“Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The degree to which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but they are a likely win-win for societies.”

These words contain some drastic and draconian implications. In order to provide “back-up abortions” to women on a global scale, a worldwide population reduction strategy must be outlined and then enforced by all nations of the planet. The Ehrlichs concede that such a worldwide effort would not go down well with nations opposing abortions:

“Obviously (…) there are huge cultural and institutional barriers to establishing such policies in some parts of the world. After all, there is not a single nation where women are truly treated as equal to men. Despite that, the population driver should not be ignored simply because limiting overconsumption can, at least in theory, be achieved more rapidly. The difficulties of changing demographic trajectories mean that the problem should have been addressed sooner, rather than later.”, the Ehrlichs write.

Responding to countless recent studies showing that not overpopulation, but underpopulation seems to be an increasing problem, especially in Europe, the Ehrlichs state:

“That halting population growth inevitably leads to changes in age structure is no excuse for bemoaning drops in fertility rates, as is common in European government circles. Reduction of population size in those over-consuming nations is a very positive trend, and sensible planning can deal with the problems of population aging.”

They also write that besides change in the politics of demography, the educational system should join the effort in a “symmetrical” manner, “moving towards sustainability and enhancing equity (including global wealth redistribution).” The scientific community must throw its weight behind the effort, the Ehrlichs say, with the aim of countering religious argumentation underlining the value of life:

“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth, is obvious but too much neglected or denied. There are great social and psychological barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering it. This is especially true because of the ‘endarkenment’—a rapidly growing movement towards religious orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought, democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and actions on empirical evidence. They are manifest in dangerous trends such as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of contraception. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed to faith-based) risk reduction strategies, it is now.”

Global population reduction and global redistribution of wealth. These things can of course only be accomplished globally, through the concerted effort of governments everywhere, or- as the authors declare, “an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”:

“At the global level, the loose network of agreements that now tie countries together”, they write, “developed in a relatively recent stage of cultural evolution since modern nation states appeared, is utterly inadequate to grapple with the human predicament. Strengthening global environmental governance and addressing the related problem of avoiding failed statehood are tasks humanity has so far refused to tackle comprehensively even as cultural evolution in technology has rendered the present international system (as it has educational systems) obsolete. Serious global environmental problems can only be solved and a collapse avoided with an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”

The two end this line of reasoning by regurgitating the neo-Malthusian mantra- which simultaneously harbors a veiled threat, namely:

“If people do not do that, nature will restructure civilization for us.”

In other words: it’s either global environmental government or mass death. These “prominent” scientists keep stressing that as long as the people quietly follow the directives of the scientific dictatorship, destruction may yet be averted. This is a form of blackmail seldom seen as such. It is the way of the serial killer, drawing his victim into his lair, all smiles and civility. Once captured, the victim will never again see the light of day.

Ehrlich and Holdren: Death “Reasonable Price to Pay” for Well-being of Society

In a 1995 article written by Gretchen Daily and Ecoscience co-author Paul R. Ehrlich, the authors put forward the proposition that physicians should no longer concentrate on improving the health of their individual patients, or treat occurring infections in order to save the patients life, but rather look to the well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, say Daily and Ehrlich, “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay”. Here’s the quote in its entirety (page 25):

“Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”

The fact that humans reproduce, Daily and Ehrlich argue, means diseases have an opportunity to thrive and reek havoc amongst them. This is the snake biting its own tail. Less humans means less diseases. The logic is infallible. The same argument can of course be applied to car accidents, plane crashes and other calamities, sure to occur with those darned humans roaming about. In order to reduce the possibility of diseases occurring, the authors list some proposals, including:

“1. Redoubling efforts to halt the growth of the human population and eventually reduce it (Daily et al., 1994). This is a very basic step, because overpopulation makes substantial, diverse contributions to the degradation of the epidemiological environment, in addition to degrading other aspects of Earth’s carrying capacity (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).”

“7. Instituting worldwide campaigns to emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners, and to increase the use of condoms and spermicides. Such changes would both lower the incidence of STDs and encourage the evolution of reduced virulence in them (Ewald, 1994). Special attention should be paid to methods that can be adopted by women (e.g., Rosenberg and Gollub, 1992; Rosenberg et al., 1992, 1993), which would tie in neatly to related methods of improving the epidemiological environment by limiting human population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1995).

From Ehrlich we switch gears to John P. Holdren, who authored (also with Paul Ehrlich) an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability. In the article, the diabolical duo propose a stark reduction in the percentage of humans on earth:

“No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable; Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are sustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.”

“This”, Holdren and Ehrlich continue, “is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth),and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person.”

The most gruesome and interesting part of their elucidation is buried in the notes (page 15). In speaking about all kinds of intolerable “harms” that counteract sustainability, Holdren and Ehrlich are willing to make an exception for pollution, if it will cut some time of the average life expectancy:

“Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).”

In the horrible euphemistic way these proposals disguised as “possibilities” are usually being presented lies hidden a horrible truth. These head-hunters of the scientific dictatorship are not simply powerless psychopaths exchanging abstract ideas. They are powerful sociopaths rather, occupying key positions within the marble halls of academia and government. In the final equation, they are after you and your children.

Eugenicist

Bill Gates

Bill Gates’ advocacy for “death panels” has caused controversy amongst conservative commentators, but the real outrage behind the story has been completely overlooked – the fact that Gates is a hardcore eugenicist and has called for lowering the global population through vaccines which his foundation funds to the tune of billions.

This isn’t going to be your normal “elitist psychopaths and their proven obsession with eugenics” article.

In doing research (sorry about the silence) for an upcoming report on some horrifying GMO projects underway, I came across Bill Gates yet again and his financial backing of contraception in nearly every form a scientist can dream up. While I’ve already written and even asked Gates personally about his population control agenda, it still somehow manages to surprise me every time I come across another list of grants Gates has funded regarding vaccine research or new contraceptives or some other scientific “innovation” aimed at the developing world.

Through his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates and funded at least 28 research projects focusing on contraception just since 2010. One even planned to test the effectiveness of shooting high-frequency ultrasonic waves at a man’s testicles to kill his sperm. Another had to do with a smartphone app to collect data on a woman’s menstrual cycles, then using an algorithm, it sends her free text messages about her period. Some of you may be asking, “Why is Bill Gates paying to text me (or paying to text my wife/girlfriend) about my(her) period?” The answer is either starting to become obvious by now or horrifying (probably both), so I’ll just move on here for the moment…

The list goes on and on. Decoy nanoparticles that attract and fool sperm. ‘Improved’ intrauterine devices (IUDs). Microparticle ‘doughnuts’ that immobilize sperm. A varicose vein treatment placed into a foam that will permanently close a woman’s fallopian tubes. Oral bait that sterilizes rats as an edible contraceptive vaccine. One that messes with the food chain by using aphids to deliver sterilants to ant queens…

I guess I just have a quick question for all those Bill Gates fans out there who earnestly believe he’s all mushy gushy about saving lives.

Who appointed Bill Gates and his billions to a position where he can sway what happens in someone’s reproductive system?

(It surely wasn’t his non-existent years of scientific, pharmacological and gynecological education and training.)

Bill Gates, Microsoft billionaire who gave us the blue-screen-of-death Windows operating system that was created with planned obsolescence and forced updates, has all kinds of power over what should be very personal, private life decisions (and life-creating parts). Why?

(Pro tip: his dad being head of population control centers aka Planned Parenthood doesn’t count.)

SHOW NOTES AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=7513

Although the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Gates are happy to sing its praises (or perhaps because they are), Planned Parenthood has a racist eugenicist past that it would prefer to sweep under the rug. The bigger problem for the organization, though, is that the past isn't over and the public is beginning to discover the real driving force behind this globalist institution. Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we pull back the curtain and expose Margaret Sanger's monstrous offspring: Planned Parenthood.

People get mad at Republicans all the time over the pro-life debate, arguing that they should have no say about what happens inside a woman’s uterus. Gates, with his billions and his research funding, does it all the time…by the same logic, where’s the outcry? Who deigned him supreme contraceptive leader?

There’s something (at least one thing, probably more things) fundamentally flawed about this situation. Gates also won’t answer questions about how he owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock and touts its genetically modified foods which have been linked to sterility as a way to end world hunger.

Look at it like this: Let’s pretend you, dear reader, have suddenly won the biggest lottery of all time. You are now a billionaire overnight. By virtue of the very fact that you have all that money, does it then suddenly follow (common sense-wise or otherwise) that you should be able to use all that money to direct scientific research projects that could affect the lives of people all over the globe? Sure, it could be for the good, but it could also be for the very very bad (see quote to the right).

Remind me again what about any of having a whole lot of money makes someone suddenly qualified to pay people to make them ‘toys’ that stop people from having babies?

Some call this “philanthropy.” Under that guise, billionaires will give you and the rest of the world whatever they want to, whether you asked for it or like it or want it or not.

So the bottom line is this: because Bill Gates has a nearly unfathomable amount of money, he can pay for whatever creepy scientific research his heart desires in whatever focus areas he so chooses. Instead of this being in some computer simulation game, however, it’s real life where the end results have real effects. Sure, people think it’s real cute when Gates offers to pay someone up to a million bucks to design a condom guys will actually want to use. It’s not nearly as cute, however, when his vaccine programs are reportedly linked to thousands of paralyzed children in developing countries like Chad and India and who knows what else.

Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century Americawill take those who have sat on the sidelines of the abortion fight and drive them to the streets. This powerful DVD is about eugenics, racial agendas, and elitism. It exposes the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement, Planned Parenthood, and a plan to create "racial purity" that began over 150 years ago.

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known. But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America's wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done. What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don't think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it's happening right now.

The elite's cryptic monument to depopulation and world government just became more mysterious (and creepier) – somebody has officially updated it with an engraved cube marking the year 2014 inserted into the English/Spanish slab of the 'new 10 commandments' for the 'Age of Reason' desired by its creators.

Website: TruthstreamMedia.com
Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
FB: Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia

Alex Jones discusses the Bilderberg Group's agenda as he reflects on the transhumanist
art which populates the grounds of the Grove Hotel.

For the latest updates on Bilderberg 2013 visit: http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg or http://www.infowars.com/b

FUKUSHIMA and Depleted Uranium:
Depopulation Elephants In The Room Exposing
The Green Agenda To Be An Absolute Fraud!

In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as "population control". This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller's intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and WAR.

Depleted Uranium Wastelands
Birth defects in Iraq Surpass Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Please Share these images with as many people as possible

Nuclear Scientist J.W. Petermann of FukushimaUpdateReport.com evaluates the hazards of
EMF radiation vs ionizing radiation, and the risks of the nuclear industry as a whole.

http://fukushimaupdatereport.com/

henry kissinger

The Houston Free Thinkers, Derrick Broze covers the story of Henry Kissinger and asks the question,
is he the greatest diplomat ever known or a war criminal?

If you want to see the real consequences of Bilderberg, look at its plans that have come to fruition — austerity and loss of national sovereignty and democracy in Europe, the massive transfer of wealth and manufacturing from American to the communist elite in China.

Frequent attendee Henry Kissinger has been involved in secret wars, military coups, CIA torture and terrorism — all of which have caused the loss of tens of thousands of lives. But the machinations of his mentor David Rockefeller and the manipulations of the central banks could, if not stopped, cause worldwide economic disaster, famine and war.

Kissinger Confronted
As “Mass Murderer”

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was confronted and labeled a “mass murderer” by We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski during an event at which Kissinger was awarded a medal for his role in promoting “freedom and democracy.”

Follow Luke at http://twitter.com/LukeWeAreChange and https://plus.google.com/u/0/102322459...

For the third time, Luke Rudkowski confronts Henry Kissinger about his crimes against humanity and the Bilderberg group. Luke also asked him about the comment he is on record saying "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." This took place at the Intrepid Freedom Gala where Henry Kissinger was receiving
a reward for "freedom and democracy."

Watch behind the scenes footage and see how this confrontation was able to take place:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQUB1G...

Support us by subscribing here http://bit.ly/P05Kqb

http://www.facebook.com/wearechange.org

The confrontation took place after Kissinger gave a speech at the “Salute To Freedom” event which took place last week at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York.

Filming the exchange via a spectacle-mounted camera while Kissinger sat down to dinner, Rudkowski asked Kissinger what he meant by the quote, “The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer,” which emerged recently via a Wikileaks data dump.

After a garbled response, Kissinger remarked, “What are you doing this for?”

Rudkowski then asked, “We want to know what the agenda of the Bilderberg Group meeting’s going to be,” to which Kissinger responded, “Oh come on, get lost please, I said get lost!”

Rudkowski continued, “How does it feel winning the freedom award when you’re wanted as a mass murderer and wanted in many countries and butchered millions of people?”

“You know this freedom award’s a lie and you’re wanted for mass murder in different countries – you know it’s a lie,” remarked Rudkowski.

Kissinger’s involvement in war crimes was best documented in Christopher Hitchens’ 2001 book The Trial of Henry Kissinger. After examining the evidence of Kissinger’s involvement in directing massacres in Vietnam, Bangladesh and Timor, as well as assassinations in Chile, Cyprus, and Washington, D.C., Hitchens concludes that Kissinger should be prosecuted “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.”

Hitchens also asserted that Kissinger is “a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory.”

A number of countries in South America and Europe have sought to question Kissinger about his actions during the Nixon and Ford administrations and several individuals have also attempted to make a citizens arrest.

This is the third time that We Are Change have confronted Henry Kissinger. Watch the first two videos below, including Kissinger’s response to himself being quoted by Bob Woodward as saying, “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

Henry Kissinger Says Luke Rudkowski
Is A Sick Person for Questioning Him on NSSM 200

Depopulating
The Third World!

In 1952 Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, coined the term Third World which he described as the people of the world that are "unknown, exploited, and scorned." In pre-revolutionary France, the first two estates were the nobility and the clergy; everybody else was the third estate. He joked that the capitalist world (First World) compared with the nobility and the communist world (Second World) with the clergy. The First World consists of wealthy capitalist, formerly industrial, countries and the Second World of the former communist and industrial countries. Third World countries are all the other countries and they have always included capitalist (e.g., Brazil) and communist (e.g., Cuba) countries, and very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.

Part contemporary investigation and part historical inquiry, documentary follows the quest of one journalist in search of justice. The film focuses on Christopher Hitchens' charges against Henry Kissinger as a war criminal - allegations documented in Hitchens' book of the same title - based on his role in countries such as Cambodia, Chile, and Indonesia. Kissinger's story raises profound questions about American foreign policy and highlights a new era of human rights. Increasing evidence about one man's role in a long history of human rights abuses leads to a critical examination of American diplomacy through the lens of international standards of justice. Written by Sujit R. Varma

The film focuses on Henry Kissinger and his role in America's secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969, the approval of Indonesia's genocidal assault on East Timor in 1975, the assassination of a Chilean general in 1970, and his involvement in the 1969 Paris peace talks concerning the Vietnam Conflict.

"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

A Window Into 21st Century Eugenics

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro has begun. The global leviathan that is the United Nations bares its teeth. In the months preceeding the summit, a continuing stream of publications has poured down from every corner of the transnational community, in essence calling for global governance of the environment as well as a stark reduction in the global human population. These two items are very much intertwined, according to the growing pile of UN papers flying from the supranational tree, all basically stating that the first is necessary in order to facilitate the latter.

One of these leaves circles down to us from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) displays a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, such as dedicated man-hater Paul Ehrlich, eco-terrorist James Lovelock and NASA’s own mad-as-hell environmentalist James Hansen. Their joint statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act” was clearly designed to inspire the UN and its upcoming confab to make haste with global government. In their manifesto the impatient fiends call for a global implementation of population policies and rights being trampled upon in order to address what they call “the population issue”:

“The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”, they write.

“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”

The authors go on to assert that “in the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave us the answer, called for the culling of the population with a desired outcome of 1 billion people worldwide.

Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave us the answer, called for the culling of the population with a desired outcome of ONE BILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE.

Lovelock also arrogantly stated in 2010 that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change- therefore governments worldwide, preferably a one world government, must prevent it for them.

Of all the eco-fascists penning down proposals, Paul Ehrlich may be considered the most bloodthirsty of the bunch- with his continuing insistence on massive population reduction. Few people need to be reminded of the words he wrote in Ecoscience which he co-authored with John P. Holdren, the current White House science czar. To highlight a few of these:

“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.”

Remember this when you read his proposals for a global society necessary to “address population issues”. Also out of Ecoscience:

“… 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.”

This suggestion might well come to pass, considering the statements issued by an organization calling itself the “Regeneration Project”, when recently it suggested in their manifest Bringing Rio Closer that the UN Security Council expand its mandate “to include environmental issues and security issues related to the environment” as well as “an International Court for the Environment (ICE) to settle disputes related to the environment and international environmental law.”

“(…) global institutions”, they say, “will be responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring sustainable development policies going forward. Currently left largely to UNEP and the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, there is a desire by many to strengthen the authority of these institutions and/or create a new World Environment Organization (WEO).”

The group also called upon governments and NGO’s to create “personal carbon quotas, essentially making carbon a new form of currency for Individuals.”

A global carbon policy, in other words, enforced by a global carbon court. Furthermore, the group advocates implementation of population stabilization policies at the upcoming summit:

“Securing commitments from governments to try to stabilize global population”, the document reads.

Stabilize the global population no less, and using UN member-states (governments) as the enforcers of policies designed to achieve that goal. Here we have yet another example of key globalist players proposing far-reaching measures to exercise control over the masses, not for the sake of control itself (that’s something for the minor psychopaths that play along), but with the objective of culling the human population globally.

The envisioned “Planetary Regime” is nearing when we take into consideration this set of proposals issued by the group. We might be surprised were the group not co-sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. We have come to expect such things from these organizations. It was the World Bank which back in 1984 suggested (page 8 ) that “drastic steps” may be necessary if developing nations do not comply with their population control directives.

It was not the first time that the Regeneration Project sought to cull the human population. In their paper Unfinished Business the group, consistent with the Georgia Guidestones, advises governments to keep the population under a certain number:

“(…) stabilizing population to not more than eight billion people”, the Unfinished Business report explains.

Another concept that has been thrown out there, is that humanity has now entered a new geological era, dominated not by natural processes, but by man. This new age, ominously dubbed “the Anthropocene” can only be reversed, the UN says, when transnational rule wipes out sovereign rule- a suggestion that has a distinct tyrannical ring to it.

This particular promo, designed to prelude the Earth Summit, has been put out by a team of UN-sponsored scientists. The website associated with the “short film” states it has been set up by “researchers and communicators from some of the leading scientific research institutions on global sustainability.”

The “leading scientific institutions” the website mentions are visible at the credits-page, namely: the Stockholm Environment Institute, the Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm University and other organizations aimed at promoting global governance.

The film itself follows the same old tiresome script we’ve heard so often from the mouths of neo-eugenic propagandists: too many people, shrinking icecaps, rising sea levels and all the rest.

In an very recent paper by Colorado state university professor Philip Cafaro titled “Climate ethics and population policy“, the term “Anthropocene” pops up once more- and once again the finger is explicitly pointed towards humanity as the prime evildoer. Citing the UN’s debunked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the professor paints a picture of gloom and doom (page 57):

He of course forgets to mention that if there’s one thing constant about climate, is that it changes constantly. Furthermore, the idea that CO2 emissions have any significant impact on the earth’s atmosphere has really been put back on the fiction-shelf where it belongs :

“It is past time to acknowledge the immense injustice toward other species represented by climate change and other human assaults on the biosphere”, the professor goes on to say: “and to reform our environmental ethics and behavior accordingly.”

What the professor means when he writes “behavior”, is not just some friendly “family planning”- campaign. He actually writes that in order to prevent global Armageddon, only the most draconian policies will do:

“Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers (emphasis added) may be necessary in order to do so.”

An important distinction. It is one thing to end growth. It’s quite another thing to reduce current human numbers.

“(…) we are more likely to achieve a decent future for the world’s poor if we end global population growth as quickly as possible. In fact, reducing the human population may be necessary in order to achieve such a future.”, the professor repeats himself on page 54.

Cafaro regards the issue as an ethical one- and stresses once again that nothing less than a significant reduction in the current human population is necessary.

“My ﬁrst substantive assertion in the second half of this paper is as follows”, he writes. “The consensus regarding acceptable limits to global climate change demands, at a minimum, that we take steps to end human population growth. Indeed, taking such limits seriously probably supports significantly reducing the size of the current global human population. Given the role population growth has played and will play in accelerating climate change under business as usual, no less cautious policy would appear to pass ethical muster.”

Decrying that “the IPCC’s position seems to be that population control is too controversial to discuss.”, the professor goes on to say that “(…) the failure to address population issues distorts our judgments regarding just what we should do to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and what constitutes a fair international division of labor regarding these efforts.”

As Cafaro continues his case for stringent population policies worldwide, he touches upon the inevitable question whether to implement such policies by force or on a voluntary basis:

“(…) the question of coercion may not be avoidable forever. It is an article of faith among many progressive writers in this area that voluntary methods are sufficient to limit populations to acceptable levels, but that probably does not hold true for all times and places, and it may not hold true for the world as a whole in the 21st or 22nd centuries.”

The professor then argues that for any population policy to be effective, it has to be done by coercion:

“China’s policies have largely stabilized its population, while some nations that rely solely on non-coercive measures, like India, continue to balloon.”

The professor can of course not wholly avoid the issue of free will perhaps revolting against a UN enforced global population-reducing assault:

“True, for many people, telling them what kind of car to drive or how many children to have will seem an intolerable infringement of their rights. But then we should move expeditiously to put non-coercive or less coercive incentives in place that achieve the desired ends. If these prove insufficient, then we may have to accept stricter limits on our freedom to consume or to have children.”

Another a bunch of scientists involved with the “Planet under Pressure” confab- one of whom stated earlier that questioning “climate change” equals serious mental illness- is featuring the Anthropocene-film prominently on its website, in addition to calling for global government to stem the tide of “human-induced climate change”.

As part of the State of the Planet Declaration issued by the UN-backed organization, a collection of high-level scientists now pushes the idea of global governance, calling it “Earth System Governance”. The declaration reads:

“Governments must take action to support institutions and mechanisms that will improve coherence, as well as bring about integrated policy and action across the social, economic and environmental pillars. Current understanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level. There is also strong support for strengthening global governance by including civil society, business and industry in decision-making at all levels.”

In a separate policy brief put out by the same confab titled Transforming Governance and Institutions for a Planet under Pressure the initiators again openly promote the emergence of global government when they write under the header “Prepare Global Governance for a Warmer World”:

“At the global level, the institutional framework seems ill prepared to cope with the consequences of massive global change that will affect such major systems as food, water, energy, health and migration, and their interactions. While massive changes, for example in sea level, may not be imminent, future dangers can be minimized if institutional reform is planned and negotiated today. Global adaptation programmes thus need to become a core concern of the UN system and governments.”

It has of course been exhaustively documented that if there’s one thing constant about the climate, is that it changes constantly. Furthermore, the idea of world government is much older than any global warming-craze the elite have come up with. As lord Christopher Monckton points out, the UNEP and other agencies within the UN system are just extra bureaucracies that are out to ruin individual freedom, replacing real liberty with the artificial sort under an planetary rule. Furthermore, all this emphasis on culling the population must give even the most gullible reader pause.