Archive for Overpopulation

Brave New World author on overpopulation , death control, brainwashing

Posted in Aldous Huxley, Communist with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 25, 2014 by saynsumthn

The Mike Wallace Interview: Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley, social critic and author of Brave New World, talks to Wallace about threats to freedom in the United States, overpopulation, bureaucracy, propaganda, drugs, advertising, and television.

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, er…the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

WALLACE: Uh-huh.

HUXLEY: Uh…this, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world’s history before, I mean, let’s just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the May Flower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the…the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago;
and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government.

So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power…the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er…, it’s an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we’ve done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

Rest of Transcript

WALLACE: All right then, so much, for the time being anyway, for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of overorganization. Er…As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.

It’s now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or er…methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us er…take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.

I mean, what were Hitler’s methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which er…he was using every modern device at that time. He didn’t have TV., but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we’re aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler’s use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but, er…the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler’s method, which could be used in a bad situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn’t be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.

This has happened again and again in history with technology’s advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn’t foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn’t want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what…what do you mean? Do you mean that we develop our television but we don’t know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you’re making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it’s being used, I think, I would feel, it’s being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it’s always driving along.

It’s not creating a wide front of distraction it’s creating a one-pointed, er…drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It’s obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you’re talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course…all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You’ve even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” er…I postulated it a substance called ‘soma,’ which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.

Well, I don’t think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it’s quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm.

I mean, this is the…the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca…cocaine, which do change the state of mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various “Enemies of Freedom” are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it’s awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World would you fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we’ve been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell’s “1984.”

Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!

WALLACE: (LAUGHS)

HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn’t to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You’re talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let’s become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, er…could, let’s say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, er…that’s why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the…the new advances in technology. I mean the…for example, in the regard to the use of the…of the drugs.

We know, there is enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way,

I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in Enemies of Freedom, you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns you say, “All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter.”

HUXLEY: Well, this is the…during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they were soap and toothpaste and that you had to depend entirely on the personality.

I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political…positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before. and I think we shall see probably, er…all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection.

I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the…psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you’ve established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily.

And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we’ll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly, I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue, which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies…

HUXLEY: Well, no I…I think that, er…advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this…I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.

But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes, for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are for doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surfaces so that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe…I…you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, “Today’s children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials.” And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have…or do you feel you’ve done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean, here, this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup; and again, suppose that, er…that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and…

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called ‘cannon fodder’ and here in the United States they are ‘television and radio fodder.’

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they are grownup.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals; it is not a shotgun method, like the…the advertising method. It’s a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head.

I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which may cause maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.

After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you ask this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I’ll put your own question back to you. You ask this, “In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating overorganization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?” You put the question, now here’s your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously…first of all, it is a question of education. Er…I think it’s terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean, what is a…there is a tendency as a…you probably read a book by Whyte, “The Organization Man”, a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual.

But this seems, as far as I’m concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the value of freedom is based.

And I think it’s extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it’s also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them.

Well, I think there is this whole educational side of…and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what’s being done.

WALLACE: You’re a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the…yes…if it…it’s feasible. It’s one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean…the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a…with a group which he can manage and understand…and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er…into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson’s day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are…it seems to me that you…that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I am concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom, of initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway it would seem to be there, Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically, militarily, at the same time it’s developing its art forms pretty well, er…it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It’s not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which, provided they don’t poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom, and a lot money.

I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think what we are going to see is er…a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the ‘epsilons’ down below…

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out; I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society, where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy, if we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position: a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to cyphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say, “I told you so!” The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.

Forced Population Control not a new concept

Posted in Ehrlich, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Guttmacher, Holdren, Huxley, Jaffe Memo, Margaret Sanger on Segregation and sterilization with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 29, 2013 by saynsumthn

Force M21

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

Beyond FP Berleson

In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U.S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.

From the film Maafa21

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ALAN GUTTMACHER

guttmachr

Then….In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

Guttmacher VP AES article

Followed by this statement, made by Planned Parenthood and the Eugenics Society’s Alan Guttmacher in a 1970 interview with the Baltimore Magazine ,
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

AlanGuttmacherEUgenicsQty 1954-55

Guttmacher was on the board of Planned Parenthood and also VP of the American Eugenics Society:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BirthControlWater

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HARRY LAUGHLIN:

Harry Laughlin was an official with both the American Eugenics Society and Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League and, in 1928, his plan for using forced sterilization to eliminate those who might produce what he called “degenerate offspring” was published in the Birth Control Review.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DONALD MINKLER:

Governments may have to use FORCE to control populations, that was what Donald Minkler told to Planned Parenthood in 1972.

Minkler Pp

“We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.” Dr. Donald Minkler, 1972.

Minkler Quote Article

Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melvin M Ketchel

In 1969, Ketchel believed that adding Birth Control o water was the answer to population control. Ketchel was a professor of Physiology at Tuffs Medical school.

Melvin Ketchel

Melvin Ketchel 2

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Samuel Holmes

The idea of forced eugenics was not something that suddenly developed in the 1970s.

Samuel Holmes Maafa21

In a 1929 speech, American eugenicist Samuel Holmes had proposed that mandatory birth control should be used as a tool to eliminate what he called the menace to the white race that had been created by increases in black population. His solution was to have a quota system in which the right to have a child would be controlled by the government and determined by race. At the time, Holmes was on the National Council of the American Birth Control League which would later become known as Planned Parenthood.

Holmes ABCL

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JULIAN HUXLEY

Huxley M21

In 1936, eugenicist Julian Huxley, proposed that the genetically inferior classes could be made to have fewer children if they were denied easy access to welfare. Another part of his proposal was that medical care to these same people should be restricted in order to reduce the survival rates of the children they did have. He also called for the forced sterilization of anyone who was unemployed beyond a certain length of time. Huxley was later honored by Planned Parenthood and was a featured speaker at one of their annual conventions.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Garrett Hardin

Hardin AES

Hardin Right to Breed

In 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society.

In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.

“I suggest that we celebrate 1976 as a year of reproductive’ pause to come as close as possible to a zero birthrate,” Dr. Garrett Hardin, a professor of human ecology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told a population conference attended by members of the John Muir Institute, a conservation organization.
• “Even if it did not succeed completely, I think we should at least make the effort—as a kind of symbolic gesture,” he said in an interview later.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIMIT BIRTHS:

Overcrowded World

Dr. Donald Aitken

Astrophysicist Dr. Donald Aitken said: “I’d like to see Mr. Nixon, stand up a few years from now and say,’Nothing has happened. Population must be controlled. We must set an example. .
” ‘So the government has to step in arid tamper with religious and personal convictions— and maybe even impose penalties for every child a family has beyond two.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

University of ‘ Colorado’s Prof, of Economics Kenneth E. Boulding has proposed a system of “Marketable licenses” to have children as the only one which will combine the minimum of social controversy necessary to the solution of the problem, with a maximum of individual liberty’and ethical choice.

Dr. Walter E. Howard

Dr. Walter E. Howard, professor of wildlife biology at the University of California at Davis, told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science he
thinks the public is not ready for laws concerning reproduction, but that “in time government controls must come.”
Procreation could no longer be considered a private matter, he said, adding, “Once the public becomes informed, I believe a social stigma will develop against large families.
Couples will be embarrassed to have more than one or two children in the very near future.”

Edgar Chasteen

Edgar Chasteen , founder of Compulsory Birth Control for All Americans, said: “Freedom will be the death of us all; if only we can recognize how necessary compulsion is to our society.”

Edgar Chasteen

Dr. Malcolm Potts

The menace of the world population e x p l o s i o n , said another speaker, Dr. Malcolm Potts, is so enormous that the alternative to a concerted, rational program now might well be “the government putting hormones in the water supply in 1984 or carrying me off for a forcible vasectomy (sterilization operation) because I had two children.”

From the public health viewpoint, he said, “I stand by my deliberately provocative statement that the pill should be in vending machines and cigarettes on prescription, According to an article in the “WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1969

Waterloo Daily
REPORTER:

On October 7,1971 the Waterloo Doily Courier, Waterloo, Iowa, reported that a reporter for Black Hawk County District Court Judges Ralph Hasner (deceased) and George Heath, responded to a two-part Waterloo Courier series last May on Black Hawk County welfare spending with this suggestion:
‘•Seems to me the best bet for the taxpayer would be to require that any woman be sterilized after the birth of her second illegitimate child. Also, the father of child number two should be sterilized. Then at least no more would be produced.” Jensen, now living in Colorado, admits that “perhaps” he was being “too tough.”,But he also suggested that
people should “get mad enough that they will insist on sterilization. Then deliberately having child after child as a means of making a living will go out of style.”

Judge Blair Wood

Black Hawk County District Judge Blair Wood is one who sees possible legal support for compulsory sterilization or birth control.
“Three factors seem to support a form of compulsory sterilization — a long – term shot or pill is after all merely temporary sterilization,” says Judge Wood.

Judge Wood also thinks a long-lasting birth control shot “would be more palatable to the court than irreversible sterilization. “Then the court could take another look at each individual situation after six months or a year and decide whether another shot was needed in order to extend that person’s temporary sterilization for another six months or year.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MARGARET SANGER

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had board members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“.

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ralph MacMullan

University of Michigan, recently, Mr. MacMullan inquired as to how we can check or .reduce the population of these United States.
“I suspect, however,” he said, “‘that the key to success lies in convincing .people that it is morally wrong for any woman to bear more than two children.”

McMullan

“How do we go about stabilizing our population? I don’t know …Many measures have been suggested — mass sterilization, abortion, birth control chemicals in the water supply—you
name it. I suspect, however, that the key to success likes in convincing people that it is morally wrong for any woman to bear more than two children.”

McMullan 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Malloy

” there is nothing farfetched about developing a nontoxic waterborne chemical that would temporarily inhibit human fertility without deleterious side effects.”
So says editorialist Michael Malloy, wringing his Hands in a recent issue of the National Observer.

Malloy

‘Such a chemical in our municipal water supplies would reduce the birth rate while avowing every couple to have as many children as they wished simply by avoiding public water. This would ‘immediately eliminate most illegitimacy our society. It would make the “unwanted child” a pathetic memory. It would free our cities from much of their crushing welfare burden. “So let’s target our population control on the least responsible instead of the most responsible people,” he urges.
“Let’s put. the sacredness of human life back in the center of our morality and stop all. these abortions. Let’s allow people to have as many children as their hearts have room for, and still reduce our population. In short, let’s find something to put in the water.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C. Scott Littleton

Littleton 4

Littleton 3

C Scott Littleton

Littleton

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J Van Overbeek:

BirthControlWater

Compulsory BC for Poor

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAUL EHRLICH

Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich advocated forced population control and was also a speaker at Planned Parenthood events – He also served on the Board of Advocates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Ehrlich PP

Ehrlich PPFA

EHrlich 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JOHN HOLDREN

Holdren Eugenics9273513_orig
Current White House science advisor John P. Holdren co-wrote the 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which lays out in detail a wide-array of coercive and voluntary-submission population control methods. One of the most drastic is that of “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods” (p. 787). Other drastic proposals include starving the poor by consolidating the global food supply and depriving nations who don’t meet population reduction goals of proportionate food rations (p. 942-3).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Frederick S. Jaffe

jaffe-memo

Putting sterilants in the water, though, dates back further to a 1969 memo sent in private from Planned Parenthood VP Frederick S. Jaffe to the Rockefeller-created Population Council’s President Bernard Berelson. It advocated drastic coercive measures including “Fertility control agents in water supply” and “encourage increased homosexuality.” But much of the one-page memo also aimed to dangle state benefits over expectant mothers to encourage abortions, sterilization and birth control through payments, tax credits and public housing policies.

Both Jaffe and Berelson are recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award for their population control work. Rockefeller-funded Sanger is a classical Eugenicist, and the founder of the Birth Control League that later transformed into Planned Parenthood. She was a key player in the highly inflammatory “Negro Project” (to reduce numbers in the black population) wherein she bluntly wrote in 1939 that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nolan Finley

NolanFinley

In 2012, The Detroit News published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous and repugnant proposal for gross state power over life and death– all in the name of fighting the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class. Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes:
“Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“

Pro-choice Daily Kos author joins population control – eugenics pushers in dreaming of a ‘global super plague’ to stop ‘overpopulation’

Posted in Agenda 21, Al Gore, birth control in water, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, Ehrlich, Environment, Eugenics, Ginsburg, Holdren, Overpopulation, Population Control, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2011 by saynsumthn

“I’m socially liberal on a lot of things. I believe in legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. In fact, I often describe myself as “Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion. There are too many god*am people already.” And while this is meant to be facetious, nevertheless there is a seed of truth in it, because I believe that the world is wildly overpopulated and that we must take steps as a society to reduce it. This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but we would could really use is a global superplague. The Black Death may have been horrible, but without it there would never have been a Renaissance.”

Daily Kos writer: We could use ‘global superplague’ to stop overpopulation
by Jeremy KrynMon Aug 22, 2011 11:21 EST

August 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A prominent left-wing American political blog has come under fire after publishing one writer’s quip that the world needs “a global superplague” because “there are too many goddam people already.” Daily Kos contributor Jon Stafford’s August 10 post, in which Stafford described himself as “Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion,” drew immediate attention in the blogosphere.

While Stafford said that his remarks are partly “facetious,” he went on to say, “nevertheless there is a seed of truth in it, because I believe that the world is wildly overpopulated and that we must take steps as a society to reduce it.

“This will undoubtedly be met with accusations of callousness, but we would could really use is a global superplague. The Black Death may have been horrible, but without it there would never have been a Renaissance.”

Read Rest here

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is nothing new…listen to this PROFESSOR of Overpopulation myths: University of Texas professor advocates the mass death of 90% of the world’s human population.
Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March of 2006 in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

Pianka suggests that we should begin to sterilize the human population now….

Recently former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth.

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

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

Not to long ago, another sinister plan was joked about when an ‘off-handed’ joke by new Schools Chancellor Cathie Black about using birth control as a means of dealing with school overcrowding isn’t going over well with some people.

The Chancellor has since apologized for the comment and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said people should move on.

Good Day New York co-hosts Greg Kelly and Rosanna Scotto see the issue from opposite sides.

Watch the video for the exchange.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

NY City School Chancellor suggests birth contro…, posted with vodpod

The off-color quip came in response to concerns by public-school dad Eric Greenleaf, who said at a meeting of parents and officials at state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s downtown office that there will be “huge shortages” of classroom space in lower Manhattan in coming years.

“Could we just have some birth control for a while?” Black cracked. “It could really help us all out a lot.”

She sounds a lot like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said abortion should be legal to “Get rid of populations we do not want to have too many of…”

Shocking fact:

In a 2009 New York Times interview , Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon that, “…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.”
watch the film- Maafa21 (clip below to see why:

</a

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maafa21 has a section in the DVD about how people discussed placing birth control pills in minority areas in the water and food to keep population down..hmmmmmm

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, 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).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com


____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Overpopulation and Darwinian eugenics motivated Discovery gunman who called human babies “Parasites”

Posted in Darwin, Environment, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Margaret Sanger, Peter Singer, Planned Parenthood, Sterilization, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Discovery Channel hostage crisis ends with gunman’s death
September 2, 2010

James J. Lee, who was protesting what he said was the network’s promotion of overpopulation, was fatally shot by police after taking three people captive at the company headquarters in Maryland.

Silver Spring, Md.: Police shot and killed a gunman after he took three people hostage Wednesday afternoon at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters here, officials said.

A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing said authorities had identified James J. Lee as the likely suspect.

Lee, 43, who was upset with the channel over its programming, entered the building about 1 p.m., wielding a gun and wearing “explosive devices,” and took a security guard and two other employees hostage, police said. The rest of the company’s nearly 1,900 employees were evacuated from the building.

After several hours of telephone negotiations, Lee pulled out his gun and pointed it at one of the hostages, police said. Tactical officers then took aim at Lee, killing him. It was unclear whether Lee had been able to fire his gun, but all three hostages were able to escape safely, according to officials.

“I know that he had some history with folks at Discovery Channel,” Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said at a news conference after the shooting.

According to electronic court records, Lee was charged with disorderly conduct in 2008 and served 46 days in jail for a protest he staged in front of the channel’s headquarters. He said he was protesting that Discovery’s programming had little to do with saving the planet.

“He didn’t think we were environmentally sound,” said David Leavy, a spokesman for Discovery Communications, adding, “there had not been any communication from him in the last couple of years.”

A lengthy posting that could be seen Wednesday on a website registered to Lee expressed anger against the Discovery Channel and said it promoted overpopulation, according to a report from the Associated Press.

He said the network and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.” Instead, he said, it should air “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”

“NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis,” he wrote.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so,” he wrote. “I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.”

Discovery Health and TLC, both owned by Discovery Communications, spearheaded America’s fascination with prodigious families.

TLC is perhaps the most recognizable in the large-family genre of reality television with its one-time flagship series “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” which at its peak garnered 10 million viewers. Its spin-off, “Kate Plus 8,” premiered with 3.4 million viewers in June.

TLC’s other bountiful brood includes The Duggar family in “19 Kids and Counting.” The network has also aired “Table for 12,” and “Kids by the Dozen,” which featured a number of families with 13 to 16 children each.

Lee posted a manifesto at savetheplanetprotest.com, but his re-purposing of the web page he’d owned since 2008 was only the latest step in Lee’s on-and offline crusade to draw attention to his cause and gain notice from the Discovery Channel. Posts with his email address and name can be found online dating back to 2006.

Lee’s original website was worldguardianvoices.com. An archived version of the page shows he was in San Diego in early December, 2006. Using the contact email “misterfifteen@hotmail.com,” Lee posted a notice dated December 11 that year stating he would be “meeting at Border’s Bookstore Downtown San Diego Gaslamp area” with “prospective people who want to do something.” He described “World Guardian Voices” as “a movement designed to educate the masses on the impending cultural collapse from overpopulation, global warming, animal extinction, pollution, and exploitation.” As with his manifesto discovered today, Lee made it clear in 2006 that his efforts were inspired by the works of Daniel Quinn, an author popular among environmentalists and anarchists. There was no mention of Discovery or any of its historically affiliated networks on Lee’s old site. Lee made no mention of the science-themed cable network 11 days later, when he made a pair of mysterious posts in a group forum on Myspace.com. Lee wrote:

I believe that it is totally possible to save the world. Not because I am a delusional maniac high on something, but because I had a practical idea on how to do it. A vision you might say, a solid idea that was very possible. The idea is not so unusual that it could not fail. I believe that there is a possibility that it could fail, like anything else.

BUT, I believe it so strongly in this idea that I am willing to put all my retirement money on it and risk ending up living on the streets like a hobo begging for handouts.

I can’t tell anyone all the specifics about my idea, because we are in competition with other environmental groups that mean well, but serve the needs of the River. If I tell you exactly what it is, the idea could be lost forever and I’ll just go off into retirement while I watch the world consume itself, so don’t ask me to be too specific about my idea.

Lee later wrote what appears to have been a response to a question since deleted from the thread. His second post was guarded, ending with, “If the idea matures to a successful execution I will call you and tell you the complete idea, because at that point you will need to know. At that point you can refuse. You can refuse at any point and quit at any time. You are under no obligation to continue even once you have started. It will roll on it’s own after that.” He then added his his “misterfifteen” hotmail address.

His Manifesto is loaded with demands to the Discovery Channel, it is Lee writes:
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s
“My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done,
by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy
human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
A game show format contest would be in order.
Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human
overpopulation.
Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS
and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s you resposibility because you reach so many minds!

0. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. ..

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease! It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices.

Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES!

Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.


Now where have we heard that before???? Babies as Parasites??? No more humans – how about the abortion/population control crowd, starting with Darwin and moving to Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Peter Singer to name just a few.

For some interesting history about Darwin, Eugenics and how that mentality is being used for population control today- watch Maafa21 (clip below)

Darwin:

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, author of the Bible on population control the Population Bomb” and known as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses South African philosopher David Benatar who said we should have humans sterilized . Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

In this Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite) Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” . Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

Here are some of the “ideas” John Holdren published in his book Ecoscience:

Where do people like Lee get their “Humans as Parasites” ideas???? Perhaps it is from Planned Parenthood’s founder- Margaret Sanger:

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had boards members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

Maybe from videos like this on YouTube:

University of Texas Biologist Eric Pianka -Population Control: Professor “HIV would be too slow!”

Ottawa Mayor’s aide links Earth Day to eugenics

Posted in Earth Day, Ehrlich, Eugenics with tags , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2010 by saynsumthn

By Kate Jaimet, The Ottawa Citizen April 23, 2010

Hours after mayor Larry O’Brien celebrated Earth Day with a speech and ceremonial tree-planting, his chief of staff, Brent Colbert, sent out a message on Twitter linking Earth Day to eugenics and forced starvation.

“Before you wish me a happy earthday they better have studied the shameful past of this ideology eugenics, forced starvation,” read the message on the social networking website.

Contacted by the Citizen to explain the posting, Colbert said the message represented his personal opinion, but agreed that he identified himself on his Twitter profile as the mayor’s chief of staff.

Colbert said he wrote the message in response to messages from people wishing him a “Happy Earth Day.” He said he believed people should research the history of Earth Day before associating themselves with it.

“Some of the people who promoted and first started the notion of Earth Day and whatnot go back and follow a history of support for eugenics, support for forced starvation and population control, through government rationing, things like that,” Colbert said.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Earth Day was founded on April 22, 1970, as an “environmental teach-in” by U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson.

Nelson, a prominent environmentalist, worked on legislation in Congress to protect the Appalachian Trail and to ban the use of the pesticide DDT. Nelson hired Denis Hayes, a Harvard University graduate student, to help organize the event.

Asked to name a person or group that is a present-day Earth Day supporter and eugenicist, Colbert said he could not think of one “off the top of my head.”
However, he said there was a shared intellectual history between the Earth Day movement and the ideas of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who died in 1966, four years before the first Earth Day.

(SANGER’S Eugenic ideas exposed in the film: Maafa21)

“She was a eugenicist, believed that the weak and feeble-minded should be bred out of society because they were a drain on the resources of the planet. So there’s all that kind of stuff,” Colbert said.

He also said that early Earth Day celebrants drew upon the ideas of Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor whose 1968 book The Population Bomb predicted mass starvation as a result of human overpopulation.

“Some of the people (were) talking about the fact that the planet was unsustainable and we’d have to take action to limit populations if we wanted to protect it and whatnot,” Colbert said.

Colbert said that concerns about a clean environment and the proper use of resources were “very valid.”

However, Colbert said he believed there was still a connection between Earth Day and eugenics. “There are still people that are doing research in terms of the issue of the overpopulation of the planet and things like that and it seems to coalesce around some of the things with Earth Day.”

In his Earth Day speech this morning, O’Brien said: “Earth Day highlights something that’s extremely important to all residents of the world, and that is the protection of our planet.”

John Lennon’s Opinion about Over Population

Posted in John Lenon, Lennon with tags , , , , , on April 16, 2010 by saynsumthn

I don’t believe in overpopulation, I think it’s a myth, ” John Lennon.

Imagine John Lennon speaking against the “myth” of overpopulation -He did !

Posted in climate change, Pollution, Population Control with tags , , , , , on December 17, 2009 by saynsumthn

“I Don’t believe overpopulation. I think that’s just a kind of myth…”