Archive for Paul Ehrlich

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States of America

Posted in Czar, Ehrlich, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , on September 20, 2010 by saynsumthn

9/16/2010

In a CNS News video interview this week, 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

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.”

___________________________________________________________


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

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

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

Population Control Obama Science Czar John P Holdren on the the maldistribution of prosperity and the redistribution of people

Posted in Abortion, Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Harrison Brown, Holdren, NSSM200, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2010 by saynsumthn

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 forecasted had 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.”

___________________________________________________________


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 recommended 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 –

The video below gives you some insight to his writings:

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

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

____________________________________________________________

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

Former Margaret Sanger Award winner and proponent of forced abortion was on the board of anti-immigration organization FAIR

Posted in Abortion, Eugenics, FAIR, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Garrett Hardin, Immigration, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2010 by saynsumthn


Garrett Hardin was a leading eugenic ecologist, whose views influenced debates on abortion, immigration, foreign aid, overpopulation, and other provocative issues. Hardin was intensely concerned about overpopulation and deeply involved with Planned Parenthood and was funded by the Pioneer Fund.

In 1949 Garrett published his elementary biology text, Biology: Its Human Implications, later issued as Biology: Its Principles and Implications. Both texts were widely used throughout the nation. He became Professor of Human Ecology in 1963.

In 1960 Garrett began to teach his Human Ecology course; his seminal paper in 1968, “The Tragedy of the Commons” — perhaps the most often cited paper — That is, freedom to breed without limit can only result in dire consequences for the human race.

A 1974 article, “Living on a Lifeboat,” garnered a storm of protest, raising as it did the notion that a prosperous country cannot accommodate all prospective immigrants without dire consequences to its own integrity. Garrett also stressed the fact that exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely, whether in the realm of human population or economic growth

According to the Garret Hardin Society, in 1980, Planned Parenthood Federation of America awarded Hardin the infamous, Margaret Sanger Award. Another report in the “Social Contract” states that In 1979 he was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award for his support for the wider provision of birth control and population limitation.

In an interview with Skeptic magazine, in 1996, Hardin describes his involvement with the eugenic founded Planned Parenthood organization,
“I started being an activist for legalized abortion in 1963. I spent most of my external time on that issue until the Supreme Court reached the famous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. I thought the fight was all over. Well, I was wrong. At the time, my wife and I were active in Planned Parenthood. She was on the local board of directors. The question came up in Planned Parenthood as to what our position should be on abortion. Some wanted to stay clear of it entirely because they realized there would he a lot of opposition. Fortunately, Planned Parenthood decided that it was a question of women’s rights. Abortion is above all other things a method of birth control. To put it another way, it’s a backstop for any system of birth control when the rest of the system fails. That decision to support the woman’s right to abortion put Planned Parenthood in a dangerous position. “

In a tribute written about Garrett and posted in the Garret Hardin Society website, Hardin’s hard core immigration position is praised, “Because fertility is low in the United States and Europe, Hardin believes that the problem of excessive population growth would be largely under control if it were not for immigration. He sees immigration as the major problem that will lead to increases in population in the economically developed world. To prevent this growth he advocates the reduction of immigration nearly to zero. In a striking metaphor, Hardin has on several occasions used the analogy of a nation as a lifeboat.5 A lifeboat can only hold a certain number of people. If more are taken on board, the lifeboat sinks and everyone will be drowned. The only rational course of action for those in a full lifeboat is to refuse to take anyone else on board. It is the same with a nation. “To survive,” he writes in his last book, Living Within Limits:

rich nations must refuse immigration to people who are poor because their governments are unable or unwilling to stop population growth.

Hardin became a member of the board of National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, which was instrumental in bringing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case which made anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hardin became a spokesman for the abortion reform movement as the result of his UCSB “Abortion and Human Dignity” lecture. Garrett wrote other papers advocating abortion reform (Hardin, 1967, 1968a) as well as the book Mandatory Motherhood: The True Meaning of “Right to Life” (I 974b).

One question asked over and over again was, “When does life begin?” Garrett would reply that biologists think that life began more than two billion years ago; but now life is merely passed on from one cell to another. The question we should ask and answer is, “When do we want to call it a human life?” Human personhood is more than just life. Garrett drew an analogy between an architect’s blueprints and the information contained in DNA.

In her online report: How Eugenics and Population Control Led to Abortion
by: Mary Meehan, Meehan writes of Hardin

In 1963 Prof. Hardin, an environmentalist who was also an ardent population controller and a member of the American Eugenics Society, made a radical argument for repealing anti-abortion laws. In an approach that would be copied by many others, he put his population and eugenics concerns in the background and based his argument mainly on the welfare and rights of women. To religious objections based on the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Hardin responded that the Bible “does not forbid killing, only murder.” And murder, he said, means “unlawful killing…. Murder is a matter of definition. We can define murder any way we want to.” Later he said that “it would be unwise to define the fetus as human (hence tactically unwise to refer to the fetus as an ‘unborn child’).”(1) Hardin had learned well the Humpty Dumpty technique:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master–that’s all.”(2)

NOTES TO ABOVE:
1. Garrett Hardin, Stalking the Wild Taboo (Los Altos, Calif.: W. Kaufmann, 1973), 24-25 & 66. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society as early as 1956. He served on its board in 1972 and remained on it in 1973-74 after the group changed its name to Society for the Study of Social Biology.

2. Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There (New York: Morrow, 1993), 124.

In his Tribute to Garrett Harding, Former Planned Parenthood Board Member and founder of the anti-immigration organization FAIR , Federation of American Immigration Reform, John Tanton, said this:

I first met Garrett (and his wife Jane – they were inseparable) at the Congress on Optimum Population and the Environment – C.O.P.E.- in 1970. The meeting was part of the first Earth Day celebrations. He and his wife Liz invited me to a meeting that afternoon where the pantheon of my heroes in the population movement were gathered: Bill’s brother Paul; Paul Ehrlich, Willard Wirtz (a cabinet officer, Secretary. of Labor, as I recall) and Garrett. What to do about population was the topic. It was a great privilege and motivator to listen in on the conversation.

In 1971 I was appointed head of the national Sierra Club’s Population Committee and learned to my delight that Dr. Hardin was a committee member…

Our next encounter was the one about which my recollection is among the strongest, though the details are unclear. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was having a meeting in San Francisco at which Dr. Hardin was to present one of the seminars. For some reason that I cannot recall, I was asked to chair that session, unlikely as that seems in retrospect. The paper Garrett presented was “Living in a Lifeboat” which perhaps best typified the avuncular academic in what was surely one of his favorite roles: agent provocateur…

My interest in population developed in the late 1950s as I was finishing medical school. By 1975 I had been elected national president of Zero Population Growth, an organization inspired by Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb.” Then in the late 1970s the US fertility rate fell to below replacement, and immigration emerged as the main source of domestic population growth. To Garrett’s dismay, ZPG declined to address these new circumstances.

When in 1979 I helped set up the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to tackle the immigration question, Garrett served from the beginning as an advisor. Later he consented to set aside his aversion to board meetings by joining the FAIR Board.

Garrett’s love of words came out during his FAIR board service. We decided to start a little ‘think tank.’ He suggested in whimsical fashion that we call it the Witan, short for Witenagemot, words we all had to look up.

We held one of the Witan meetings in the Hardins’ hometown of Santa Barbara. The featured speaker was a well-known ethicist, whom we will leave nameless. He knew a lot about philosophical ethics, but little about population, resources, immigration or the environment. Garrett’s pugnacious side came to the fore when they got into the still troubling topic of Lifeboat Ethics. Garrett clearly came out on top, in our view.

In the early 1980s Bill Paddock secured for me a seat on the board of the Environmental Fund, on which both he and Garrett served. Dr. Hardin had already retired from the University of California at Santa Barbara. He and Jane moved to Washington, D.C. where he took over as Executive Director of the Fund for about two years. He brought along the remarkable card file of quotations that he had compiled over many years of reading and writing. It contained – as I recall – 30,000 4 x 6 cards on which quotes were filed first by subject, and then again by author on cards of another color. It was a prodigious work. Later we were able to raise the money to have a computer program written to enter all this material, long before such programs were available “off the shelf.” Garrett and Jane dubbed it the Laurel Filer. One of our concerns is that this scholarly resource and his library not be lost as their affairs are settled. Garrett left behind a completed but as yet unaccepted and unpublished manuscript.

In 1990 on the occasion of Dr. Hardin’s 75th birthday, Paul Ehrlich and I, together with the American Institute for Biological Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution, organized a Festschrift to fete his accomplishments. Garrett appreciated the recognition, a particularly suitable one for an academic. Some copies of the 12 papers presented are still available from The Social Contract Press Bookstore. They were collected and published as the Spring 1991 issue of Population and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3.

Garrett told me many times that he wished he had titled his most famous essay “The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons,” as he believed firmly that it was fine for society to own things in common, provided that they were managed for the common good. There were and are those of Libertarian philosophical bent who used the essay to argue that essentially all property should be privately owned.

Whenever I came across a reference to the original Commons essay I’d send it along for addition to the compilation of such uses that Garrett kept. There were literally hundreds of citations, if not thousands. He would have fared quite well in today’s academe where “citation analysis” is one of the current modes of evaluation.

Garrett was au courant to the end. We had opened discussions on something neither he nor any demographer we knew had anticipated: the development of marked sub-replacement fertility in much of the developed world. Virtually every model showed the post-WWII fertility spike declining conveniently to the replacement level of about 2.1 lifetime births on average per woman. He saw clearly and wrote that any nation – and he was in favor of the nation state – that reduced its fertility to replacement levels or below, and did not control its borders would just be overrun. Those who have eyes, let them see.

Life in a nursing home was not an option for this man of letters. Jane had been diagnosed with ALS – amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, one of the least desirable ways to leave this planet. It worsened. Both were long time members of the Hemlock Society, and decided to take matters into their own hands. This can give us a lot to think about, especially as our own infirmities come to the fore – and since my wife and I live in a state that counts Dr. Jack Kievorkian among its citizens.

My wife and I did not attend the memorial service…”

In 2003, Harding and his wife died in an apparent suicide pact.
He was 88 and she was 81.

Sharon Clausen,one of the couple’s four children, said, “They were both members of the Hemlock Society (End-of-Life Choices) and felt very strongly that they wanted to choose their own time to die.”

In “The Tragedy of Commons” Hardin writes this eugenic statement, “The only way we can we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon.

In an April 3, 1971 article printed in the Gadsden Times ( Legal Limit on Births Possible), Hardin supports forced sterilization and forced abortion when he states, The government will have to step in and take control, that’s all there is to it, there will have to be laws against big families…when a woman has X child, she would be advised that she has the alternative of sterilization if she so desires. But after that X child, X plus 1,she would no longer have an alternative. She would by law be required to have an abortion and sterilization ” Hardin says the law would not be difficult to enforce, “95% of American births take place in hospitals, so we wouldn’t as they say, have to have a policemen under each bed.”

Also Read: Anti-Immigration leader responsible for America’s first abortion law

Anti-Immigration leader responsible for America’s first abortion law

Posted in Abortion, Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS)?, Ehrlich, Eugenics, FAIR, Garrett Hardin, Immigration, Margaret Sanger, North Carolina Eugenics, Numbers USA, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Richard Lamm with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2010 by saynsumthn

In 1967, Colorado became the first state in the US to legalize abortion.

Colorado’s bill was carefully steered through the lower house by then Denver Representative Richard D. Lamm. Lamm was the abortion bill’s principle sponsor. The abortion bill was the first one to pass a state legislature in the United States setting off a domino effect of other bills in various other states. It was signed into law by then Governor John A. Love.

Richard D. Lamm is Co-Director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver, and the former three-term Governor of Colorado, (1975-1987).

Today Lamm sits on the boards of several anti-immigration organizations the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and (PFIR), Progressives for Immigration Reform, and (CAPS), Californians for Population Stabilization.

Lamm has always been in the forefront of political change. As a first year legislator, he drafted and succeeded in passing the nation’s first liberalized abortion law. He was an early leader of the environmental movement, and was President of the First National Conference on Population and The Environment. Lamm was elected to three terms as Colorado’s top elected official, and in serving as Governor from January 1975 and retiring in January 1987, he was the longest-serving Governor in Colorado’s history to that date.

In a press release about his newest book, THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF HEALTH CARE, Lam writes about limits, rationing and denial to Americans of some of the health care they have come to expect. “We are going to have to have a candid dialog and set priorities on spending limits at the beginning of life, the end of life, and all points in between. No modern nation can build a health care system an individual at a time. The new questions in health care will not only be What do we need? but What can society afford? I hope this book makes Americans more aware of that.” Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm is well known for speaking out about issues that politicians find too controversial to address, including his often misinterpreted “Duty to Die” speech in 1984. He was also a presidential candidate for the Reform Party.

Lamm’s position on the board the (FAIR) Federation of American Immigration Reform lays side by side founding notable population controllers as Paul Ehrlich and Garret Hardin.

_______________________________________________________________

What most people are unaware of is that many anti-immigration organization have deep ties to the abortion and population control movement. Groups like FAIR, PFIR, Numbers USA, Caps, Pioneer Fund and others have connections to abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics. An honest debate on Immigration can and must be made – but- if the ideas are based in eugenics and population control they need to be weeded out of the conversation. That mentality just cannot continue to be supported and the organizations I am about to outline – do in fact, promote population control ideas.

Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

If you look at the history and website of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) you will note that many on FAIR’s board are former Planned Parenthood members and leaders, abortion clinic workers, and Zero Population Control Activists ! Just Google John Tanton– FAIR’S founder and see his links to Planned Parenthood in Michigan- In Fact, FAIR’s board member, Sarah G. Epstein, now serves on Planned Parenthood’s board in Washington. Epstein also serves on the Pathfinder International board founded by eugenics financeer, Clarence Gamble. In fact, Epstein is the daughter of Gamble, and as she serves on Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR’s) Board : According to the North Carolina Winston-Salem Journal, “Gamble helped found the Human Betterment League of North Carolina in 1947 to promote eugenic sterilization, and Journal research shows a long history of abuses in the N.C. sterilization program – abuses that Gamble consistently glossed over..” One major eugenics promoter which Gamble linked up with was Margaret Sanger.

In 1939, Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger , and member of the American Eugenics Society, began The Negro Project. The Negro Project was but a precursor to what eugenicists wanted to implement on a much larger scale, by convincing leaders in the African American Community to support Planned Parenthood under the guise of “helping the black man.”

“The main objectives of the [proposed] Population Congress is to…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

– Margaret Sanger, “Plan for Peace”, 1932 Senate hearings


Read what Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, wrote in a letter to Pathfinder Founder, Clarence Gamble ,

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation [of Eugenicists] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We don’t want the 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.”

Clarence Gamble, mentioned above funded the North Carolina Eugenics Society. Click Here : Clarence Gamble. Gamble also supported Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Movement. Sanger and many of her board members and presidents were members of the American Eugenics Society.

Listen to what the State of North Carolina’s Eugenic Board (Funded by Sanger supporter- Clarence Gamble) did to this “African American woman” : Elaine Riddick
( Interview From the film: Maafa21)

Back to Pathfinder
Pathfinder International is currently run by board members who are supporters of Planned Parenthood, doctors for Planned Parenthood, or are Board members of Planned Parenthood, and other population control organizations. In May of 2010, Pathfinder International , which Epstein served with and also issued The Memorandum of Understanding with International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). According to a press release, the MOU establishes a jointly agreed framework for continued collaboration between the two organizations. The documents reads in part, “IPPF and Pathfinder share a common commitment to improve the lives and promote the reproductive health and rights of individuals and couples. Together, Pathfinder and IPPF have entered into this agreement to facilitate deeper collaboration to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights globally…” Reproductive Rights is code for abortion on demand !

IPPF stands for “International Planned Parenthood Federation” , so you can see that on top of the eugenics founding of both Pathfinder and Planned Parenthood- they have agreed to work together because their goals are the same.

Back to FAIR:

Also on FAIR’s board is Joyce Tarnow a former Abortion Clinic Owner from Florida – currently on FAIR’s National Board of Advisers . Tarnow, who recently retired from her abortion business to work in anti-immigration work full time, has made stunning comments about Haiti in the past and recently reinforced her outrageous point of view after the earthquake . Read her views of Haitians here: Florida abortionist on Haiti, “Stew in your own juices” More on Tarnow’s Darwinian beliefs in an interview from the film: Maafa21 clipped below:

Also Read: Former abortionist about helping Haiti, “Give them all the help they need, but don’t bring them to this country.”

And Read: Florida abortionist on Haiti, “Stew in your own juices”


FAIR’s Founder: John Tanton-“Population Control” motive for “Immigration” work

In 1975: John Tanton the founder of FAIR wrote The Case for Passive Eugenics You can read that here

In These Times reporter CHRISTOPHER HAYES, writes that as early as the ’50s, Tanton ( FAIR’s founder) avidly read reports from the Population Reference Bureau and by the time long time population control advocate: Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb” was published, Tanton and his wife, Mary Lou had already started work on the first Northern Michigan chapter of Planned Parenthood. “I believed in the multiplication tables,” says Tanton. “Since I was a physician and could do something about birth control, it struck me that this was where I could make my contribution to the conservation movement.”

Some history on Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion chain of clinics and they are well funded by many population control and eugenics organizations , including our own federal government. Planned Parenthood sets up their abortion centers primarily in immigrant and minority neighborhoods, making sure from the inside of the USA that the numbers of minorities are kept down. This is called “Negative Eugenics” and Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger wrote quote substantially about this in her publication, the Birth Control Review. She also allowed many racist and eugenic writers to be published there. One such writer and Board member of Sanger’s American Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood) was Lothrop Stoddard, often quoted by the KLAN.
Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger was a featured speaker for the KLAN. Sanger admitted in her autobiography that she was invited at LEAST a dozen times to speak to the KLAN and now Planned Parenthood’s highest award is named in Sanger’s honor. The KLAN, last I heard was a “RACIST” Organization, yet no one condemns Sanger including Planned Parenthood. Sanger and many of Planned Parenthood’s founding board members were also card carrying members of the racist American Eugenics Society ! Margaret Sanger believed in EUGENICS and founded Planned Parenthood based on that belief ! For details on Sanger’s racism and factual information on how Planned Parenthood has taken racist donations, watch the film mentioned above: Maafa21 (http://www.maafa21.com)

Pioneer Fund:
Pioneer Fund’s eugenic roots also connect to Planned Parenthood. In Fact, most of the “Founders” of Pioneer Fund also worked closely with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger. Harry Laughlin and Frederick Osborn , both founders of Pioneer Fund were members of the American Eugenics Society and members of Sanger’s American Birth Control League which changed it’s name to Planned Parenthood, they also wrote regularly in Sanger’s Birth Control Review. Laughlin and Osborn also signed Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood” published in her review in April of 1938.


According to Truman State University , Laughlin was placed in charge of the Eugenics Record Office of the Department of Genetics of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, D. C., from its origin in 1910 until 1921 and director from 1921 until 1940. Dr Laughlin served as the eugenics expert for the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, U. S. House of Representatives from 1921 to 1931; the Eugenics Associate to the Municipal Court at Chicago, 1921 to 1930; the U. S. immigration agent to Europe for the Department of Labor from 1923 to 1924; and was a member of the permanent Immigration Commission of the International Labor Office of the League of Nations in 1925.

He also was a member of the Galton Society, the Eugenics Research Association, the American Society of International Law, the American Statistical Associate, president of the American Eugenics Society 1927-28, associate editor of the Eugenical News from 1916 to 1939, secretary of the Third International Congress of Eugenics in 1932, and president of the Pioneer Fund, Incorporated, from its origin until 1941.

Laughlin published numerous articles and books on eugenics, eugenical sterilization, immigration, genetics, and various phases of inheritance including racing capacity in thoroughbred horses. It is his work on eugenical sterilization and immigration restriction for which he is best known. Laughlin’s Eugenical Sterilization in the United States established him as an “expert” on the topic. His model sterilization laws were used by many of the more than 30 states that passed eugenics sterilization laws. Germany’s 1933 sterilization laws were also modeled after Laughlin’s. Laughlin’s immigration studies, which seemed to support the idea that recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe had a higher percentage of “socially inadequate” persons than other immigrants, led to the highly restrictive immigration quota system of 1924 which favored immigrants from Northern Europe.

Some history about how Laughlin influenced the 1924 Immigration Act:
According to Paul Lombardo, University of Virginia
In 1911, Immigration Restriction League President Prescott Hall asked his former Harvard classmate Charles Davenport of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) for assistance to influence Congressional debate on immigration. Davenport recommended a survey to determine the national origins of “hereditary defectives” in American prisons, mental hospitals and other charitable institutions. Davenport appointed ERO colleague Harry Laughlin to manage the research program.

The Public Health Service (PHS), whose duties included performing medical inspections of disembarking passengers at Ellis Island, also adopted eugenic arguments to help stem the flood of “inferior stock” represented by the new immigrants. Beginning in 1914, the Surgeon General and a number of senior officers in the PHS became publicly aligned with the eugenics movement. They took prominent roles in eugenic organizations and published articles to support the eugenicists’ position in the immigration restriction debate. The key role of PHS physicians as medical guardians of U.S. ports – particularly at Ellis Island – gave the PHS additional credibility.

Without specific support from eugenicists, by 1917, Congress had expanded the legal definition of those “likely to become a public charge” to include: “all idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons…,” “persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority…, and” “mentally or physically defective..,” Later involvement of eugenicists further broadened that definition by specifying the immigrant groups most likely to represent what Laughlin called the “socially inadequate.”

In 1920, Laughlin appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Using data for the U.S. Census Bureau and a survey of the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons and reformatories, he argued that the “American” gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe. Sympathetic to Laughlin’s message, Committee Chairman Albert Johnson of Washington State appointed Laughlin as “expert eugenics agent.”

In this capacity, Laughlin conducted research from 1921 to 1931. He took a fact-finding trip to Europe, used free postage to conduct large-scale surveys of charitable institutions and mental hospitals, and had his results published by the Government Printing Office. His research culminated in his 1924 testimony to Congress in support of a eugenically-crafted immigration restriction bill. The Eugenics Research Association displayed a chart beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol building in Washington showing the cost to taxpayers of supporting Laughlin’s “social inadequates.”

The resulting law, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, was designed consciously to halt the immigration of supposedly “dysgenic” Italians and eastern European Jews, whose numbers had mushroomed during the period from 1900 to 1920. The method was simply to scale the number of immigrants from each country in proportion to their percentage of the U.S. population in the 1890 census – when northern and western Europeans were the dominant immigrants. Under the new law, the quota of southern and eastern Europeans was reduced from 45% to 15%. The 1924 Act ended the greatest era of immigration in U.S. history.

Upon signing the Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, “America must remain American.” This phrase would become the rallying cry of anti-immigration sentiment until after World War II. The eugenic intent of the 1924 law and the quota system it established remained in place until they were repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Numbers USA , founder Roy Beck, and their ties to John Tanton/Planned Parenthood

Groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its research arm, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), are the inheritors of the Progressive Movement’s anti-immigration mantle. John Tanton, who founded FAIR, CIS, Numbers USA and a plethora of other anti-immigration groups, is a self-described progressive who first became involved in public policy issues in the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood, later becoming president of Zero Population Growth. John Tanton mentored Roy Beck , who then founded Numbers USA with Tanton’s help.

NUMBERSUSA EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

From the website of Numbers USA: Roy Beck Founder of Numbers USA

Roy H. Beck is the Executive Director and President of NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation. One of the nation’s first environment-beat newspaper reporters in the 1960s and a journalist for more than 25 years, Mr. Beck became a full-time policy analyst of immigration and U.S. population issues in 1991. He has written four books on immigration, environment and the U.S. labor market, and on ethics, religion and public policy. He is co-author of numerous studies of sprawl and has been published in scores of magazines, academic journals and newspapers. He founded NumbersUSA in 1996. Mr. Beck has annually led teenagers on Habitat for Humanity work trips since 1990, is an enthusiastic guitarist, and has served in nearly all capacities of leadership at Mount Olivet United Methodist Church, Arlington, Virginia.

Numbers USA – Founding Board Member with Ties to Planned Parenthood
:
Don Weeden is the Executive Director of the Weeden Foundation which supports a wide range of programs that aim to preserve biodiversity, nationally and internationally. Prior to taking that, Don had a nearly 25-year career in the international population and economic development field, serving in various field and management positions for Columbia University, International Planned Parenthood Federation, and other non-governmental organizations devoted to increasing access to family planning services. He is a specialist on South and Southeast Asian population issues, where he lived and worked for nearly 20 years. He has also worked in Mexico, Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Don has a Masters in Population Planning (Public Health) from the University of Michigan.

_________________________________________________________________________

Roy Beck’s ties to Tanton and Tanton-founded anti-immigration groups go back at least to 1991. Tanton hired Beck as a consultant “because of his unique background in environmental reporting, and his understanding of the immigration issue,” Tanton wrote in a 1997 memo. At least through the summer 2000 issue, Beck served as editor of John Tanton’s The Social Contract. (SOURCE: http://www.newcomm.org/pdf/CNC-NUSA.pdf )

In 1985 – this Tanton letter makes it clear that Tanton wanted to couch his population control agenda under different terms such as the Center for Immigration Studies working together:
Tanton write, “After careful and prolonged study, the FAIR Board has concluded that a “Think Tank” on the scale of Worldwatch Institute is n eeded. For credibility. “This will need to be independent of FAIR, though the Center for Immigration , as we’re calling it as we’ re calling it , is starting off as a project of FAIR. A grant from the Wood Prince Foundation of Chicago under wrote our study. and provided for hiring an initial director, now accomplished.

John Tanton – Is Chairman of the US “Umbrella Foundation” – You will see that NUMBERS USA comes under that Umbrella: Here

In this 2001, John Tanton Letter, Tanton clearly shows how he and Roy Beck are connected-
Tanton writes, “Roy Beck and I think we have come up with an idea that can actually move the battle lines on the immigration question in our favor. While we are working on other ideas to move Democrats, this one involves using the recently released census data to show Republican members of Congress, the Administration, and the party’s leadership how
massive immigration imperils their political future. The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.” …Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress.”

_________________________________________________________________________
Another organization investigating the racist connections of John Tanton and FAIR is: The Southern Poverty Law Center, who nail it when they write about John Tanton’s racism – but consistently refuse to mention the clear connections of John Tanton, Pioneer Fund, Numbers USA to Planned Parenthood. Why would this be? Because SPLA is well connected to the ACLU and the abortion lobby. So – you can see they also have an agenda which keeps them muzzled on showing the entire truth here – despite the fact that the documentary Maafa21 shows clearly that Planned Parenthood is promoting Black Genocide.

SPLC Writes, “FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the “puppeteer” of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists, promoted anti-Semitic ideas, and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a “neo-Nazi organization.” He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, “a European-American majority” is required.
FAIR, which Tanton founded and where he remains on the board, has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among the reasons are its acceptance of $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a group founded to promote the genes of white colonials that funds studies of race, intelligence and genetics. FAIR has also hired as key officials men who also joined white supremacist groups. It has board members who regularly write for hate publications. It promotes racist conspiracy theories about Latinos. And it has produced television programming featuring white nationalists.”

The fact that Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger also met with White Nationalists like Stoddard and the KKK failed to make SPLC’s report.

_________________________________________________________________________
Roy Beck ( And John Tanton ) have both stated that they were frustrated that groups Like Planned Parenthood because they did not believe that Planned Parenthood went far enough. Tanton said this was the reason he started another pro-abortion pro-population control group: Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Hayes again states that, in 1969, Tanton started and chaired the population committee of his local Sierra Club chapter, and when Ehrlich and like-minded environmentalists founded the advocacy group Zero Population Growth (ZPG), he became one of its most active members, rising to its presidency in 1975. By then, the birthrate for Americans had declined below the replacement rate, but the American population was projected to keep growing. Tanton settled on the culprit: immigration.

Writing with Leon Kolankiewicz, in a piece entitled: The Environmental Movement’s Retreat from Advocating, Roy Beck Founder of Numbers USA writes:

Roy Beck
By the 1990s, for example, Planned Parenthood no longer played any role in advocating for U.S. population stabilization to protect the environment. Its focus had narrowed to making sure that women had full access to the whole range of options concerning fertility and births. That had always been a primary mission of Planned Parenthood, but one of the major purposes of empowering women had once been to reduce U.S. population growth.

And speaking of the pro-abortion group Zero Population Growth, founded in 1968 by Professor Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, here is ZPG ( Zero Population Growth) Linking to Numbers USA :

Note: They also link to Alan Guttmacher, Teen Wire a Planned Parenthood Website, California’s for Population Stabilization (CAPS) another Planned Parenthood filled Immigration Org, and the United Nation;s Population Fund

_________________________________________________________________________

Among some conservatives- these are Listed as “Supporters” of Numbers USA:

Gaylord Nelson, former Senator (D-WI), co-founder of Earth Day (deceased)

David Brower, former executive director, Sierra Club (Deceased)
Sierra Club
Dave Brower, 1966 executive director
Numbers USA, Role of U.S. population stabilization at the beginning of the modern environmental movement Population Issues and the 1970-Era Environmental Movement
Quote: “We feel you don’t have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy, ” said Dave Brower, 1966 executive director.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/about-us/supporters.html-0

From Numbers USA:
Third World Growth — California Style
Fast Facts on U.S./CA Population
Almost 60% of all pregnancies in the US are unintended. Better access to family planning, including contraception, is necessary so that women can choose the size of their families and delay pregnancy.
The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is twice that of any other industrialized nation and most of these are unintended. 85% of health insurance plans cover abortions and sterilizations, but only 15% of these cover all 5 FDA-approved reversible methods of contraception. The cost of providing coverage for contraceptive drugs is $1.25 per month per employee, although the out-of-pocket expense to an uncovered employee is $25- $50 a month.
92% of California’s population growth during the past decade was due to mass immigration (immigrants plus births to immigrants here). This state receives 40% of all immigrants to the U.S.
The U.S. now accepts over 1 million legal immigrants per year which is almost 5 times its traditional level. Illegal immigration is soaring to almost 800,000 per year.
In just fifty years the U.S. population will be almost a half billion (almost double) with 90 percent due to mass immigration since 1970.

NumbersUSA attacks Senator Cornyn!

According to Texas GOP Vote:
It doesn’t take much for anti-immigration group NumbersUSA to get their knickers in a twist. When they got word that Texas Senator John Cornyn (who has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 92.00) was attending Thursday’s White House meeting on immigration reform, Roy Beck with Numbers USA fired off an angry blast email calling on recipients to jam the Senator’s office phone lines….
Check out Roy Beck’s famed “gumball” presentation! In it he also makes it clear that he is OK with U.S. support for “family planning” (i.e., abortion) to reduce population growth in third world countries. I am sure Planned Parenthood agrees. It is a real shame that the views pushed by Beck and his group have been accepted by so many in the GOP. Are his principles really consistent with conservative Texas GOP principles?
Beck’s email also warns Cornyn against committing “political suicide.” Folks, take a look at this report and tell me who is committing political suicide. 2008 provided a great test case for the “enforcement only” proponents, here are some highlights:

Racism is an issue with these Immigration Organizations- and most of the ones I quoted are also connected to Planned Parenthood. Watch
Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Clip Below) to learn much more about Planned Parenthood’s connections to Eugenics and racism:

Another organization with leadership in Planned Parenthood is PFIR, Progressives for Immigration Reform. PFIR’s President and Chair, William N. Ryerson, is the Founder and President of Population Media Center. Before founding Population Media Center, he served as Director of the Population Institute’s Youth and Student Division, Development Director of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania, Associate Director of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, and Executive Vice President of Population Communications International.

Ryerson also has connections to another anti-immigration organization called: Californians for Population Stabilization or (CAPS). In addition to his connections to Planned Parenthood, CAPS’ 2009 annual report mentions a Board Member, Executive-at-Large:

Henry Mayer,M.D. a was a practicing physician and Clinical Professor of Medicine at Stanford University’s Medical School. He also
served on the board of directors of San Mateo County Planned Parenthood
and produced the documentary film which focused on eugenic sterilization, called “Tomorrow’s Children.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL READING:

For more reading: An Interesting Article: http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/environmentalism/14497474-1.html
Guilt by association: the most influential anti-immigration network in America tries to convert liberals to its cause.
By Weisberg, Jessica Publication: The American Prospect
Date: Tuesday, June 1 2010

Who is John Tanton and Why Should You Care? Just Ask Joyce Tarnow.
By Gail Shepherd, Thursday, May. 20 2010 @ 4:01PM


Joyce Tarnow (hearts) John Tanton
John Tanton’s name is getting a lot of play. Depending on who you talk to, Tanton is either a raging pro-eugenics racist with a deep-seated animosity toward brown people — or — a beaming, professorial Renaissance man with an insatiable curiosity and an infallible moral compass.

Why should you care? Because Tanton founded the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and now sits on its board. We’ve referenced him in a couple of blog posts recently. A lot of people have FAIR, and Tanton, on the brain because of developments on the fronts of immigration, population control, and Amendment 4, the “slow growth” amendment to the Florida Constitution that we’ll all be voting on in November.

Just about anybody involved in either immigration control or reform has ties to, or opinions about, FAIR. The organization is said to be behind the recent Arizona Senate Bill 1070, for example. Lake Worth City Commissioner Scott Maxwell, who is staunchly in favor of strict immigration control, is a FAIR supporter. As is Lesley Blackner, the Palm Beach Attorney who started the Hometown Democracy movement that resulted in getting Amendment 4 on this year’s ballot. Whether you’re an environmentalist, a slow-growth advocate, a white nationalist, an immigration reformer, or a women’s reproductive rights activist, the road you’re marching will eventually lead you back to John Tanton. The Southern Poverty Law Center published an inflammatory report late last year labeling FAIR a “hate group” based in large part on its evaluation of Tanton.

And then there’s Joyce Tarnow. New Times has been covering Tarnow for nearly a decade: She’s a former Deerfield Beach activist and gadfly, a population control expert who once ran an abortion clinic in Fort Lauderdale. Tarnow, who lives in North Florida now, is a vocal advocate for Amendment 4. She has strong opinions on immigration. She’s all for zero population growth. And she thinks Florida’s environment is going to go down the tubes if we don’t brush the beach sand out of our eyes and really look at what’s happening to our water and our wildernesses.

Tarnow, now in her 70s, is as fierce a bulldog as ever. She bared her canines at us this week, when she fired off an email to defend John Tanton, whom she called “a personal friend of mine.” Here’s what she had to say:
John Tanton has been a population control advocate for more than forty years. I first met John in 1972 when he and I served on the national board of Zero Population Growth. His contributions to the social issues of our day are courageous and well thought out, issues that too many are afraid to tackle.

A small example was his suggestion to the board and staff of ZPG that we should look into radio advertising of condom use. That did not fly then, but now we have Viagra all over the air waves.

John and his wife Mary Lou organized the Planned Parenthood chapter in Petoskey, Michigan. He started FAIR because he saw that U.S. population was being propelled by the immigration policy changes by Congress starting in 1965. He started the Social Contract magazine that features the best writers on population, immigration and the impacts on our resources and our citizens.

John is a stellar individual and is slandered by an organization [ed: Tarnow is referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center here] that collects a lot of money but spends very little on its stated mission.

COMMENTS LEFT ON THE ABOVE STORY:

Steve Ellman says:
According to Joyce Tarnow, John Tanton’s Social Contract magazine “features the best writers on population, immigration and the impacts on our resources and our citizens.” Really?
Here’s what a random walk through some recent issues revealed to me:
-Spring 2009. An article titled “Mexico Mainlines Malevolence …and Immigration Policy Brings It Here,” in which author Brenda Walker begins with the observation that “Mexicans’ cultural fondness for the dark side is well known” and concludes with the “bottom line” that “One of the world’s worst possible immigrant groups (other than Muslims of course) is coming to America in record numbers and burdening us with their toxic culture of crime, sexism, bribery, pedophilia, slavery, child kidnapping, educational apathy, animal cruelty, superstition and general corruption.”
-Spring 2009. A book review titled “Madison Grant and the Preservation of Buffaloes, Redwoods, and America’s European Heritage,” in which critic F. Roger Devlin writes approvingly of the book’s subject, Madison Grant, a leading early 20th century racist and eugenicist, who believed that “the American human ‘type’ was degenerating under the onslaught of ‘invasive species’ from Southern Europe and the ghettos of Poland.”
-Superficially less, um, malevolent, the Winter 2009-2010 issue includes an article titled “Adios, WQXR!” in which author Gerda Bikales, writes, “In the annals of America’s gradual retreat from the bedrock of Western culture, July 15, 2009 is a milestone to remember. On that day, the New York Times announced the sale of its iconic classical music station to Univision, the giant Spanish-language media company.” Gerda concludes by observing that “in an era of rapid change driven by mass immigration and failing assimilation, a nagging question presents itself: when does cultural enrichment become cultural displacement?”
Bikales’ lament seems comical, initially: Good lord! Them immigrants are the death of classical music.
But really, what sort of paranoid mind attributes the decline in the popularity of Beethoven and Brahms to demographic change first and foremost? It appears Bikales has never heard of MTV. But such is the power of xenophobia.
-Also in the Winter 2009-2010 issue, another choice book review, “Spiraling Toward Chaos,” in which critic Fred Elbel blithely passes on these nuggets of wisdom: “A derivative of a historically subjugated people is the engrained Mexican characteristic of the inability to trust anyone. ‘The concept of cheating is accepted. It is universal in Mexico. It is a holdover from the Aztec system of accommodation’”and “Similarly, the rule of law is not held in high esteem in Mexico as it is in the U.S. ‘When Mexicans do abide by the rule of law it is not for conceptual or moral reasons. They abide by the rule of law in order to not get apprehended by the police…The inability to accept responsibility for any mistake is a dominant Mexican characteristic…’”
I could go on, but I’m sure one gets the idea. John Tanton may be Joyce Tarnow’s “personal friend” and “a stellar individual.” But whatever else Tanton may be or do, as a publisher he is an active, willing host to racist thought and a panderer to anti-immigrant paranoia.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 20 2010 @ 8:19PM

Gail Shepherd says:
Some clarifications from Joyce Tarnow, via email:
Two points: I was a Pompano Beach resident
for thirty-three years….owned and ran the Women’s Clinic for
twenty-eight years—hardly a gadfly with that kind of commitment.
And, forty years working to remedy the overpopulation of the U.S.
I posted the Puppeteer article to you today…..let me know your
reaction. Hopefully, you will think it worth another article. Maybe
from the standpoint of who and why are so many foundations funding open
borders groups. In the case of the SPLC, the attacks make their cash
register ring. Morris Dees is the true hate monger.
Posted On: Friday, May. 21 2010 @ 10:01AM

anonymous says:
Great you expose these two: Abortionist FAIR board member, Joyce Tarnow and FAIR Founder John Tanton. Both in favor of Pop Control and both have ties to abortion and Planned Parenthood (You failed to mention this). Have you watched the documentary: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America? This film proves how the eugenics groups use abortion to target minorities. Tarnow and Tanton are connected to abortion, and many on the board of FAIR either used to be on the board of or are currently on the board of Planned Parenthood the nation’s largest abortion clinic chain who set up in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, just like Tarnow did when she ran her abortion clinics. The film: Maafa21 exposes why they do this and I find it revealing that these same people with connections to population control and PLANNED PARENTHOOD in FAIR, are now behind the anti-immigration movement. This is NOT About immigration, it is about EUGENICS. Watch Maafa21 (http://www.maafa21.com) and see why.
Posted On: Tuesday, May. 25 2010 @ 12:48AM

NAACP’s Julian Bond on Ehrlich’s population control

Posted in Black Genocide, Black History Month, Black Panthers, NAACP, Ryan Bomberger with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2010 by saynsumthn

Julian Bond1970- Julian Bond, in a commencement speech at Syracuse University. Bond had become the director of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, which he helped found. At the time of the speech, he was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Southern Conference Education Fund, of the Advisory Board of the proposed Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library, and of the Executive Committee of the Atlanta NAACP. Bond suggested that the intense interest in the ‘population bomb” could lead to genocide of black Americans and other poor people. Bond begins, ”If Mother Nature don’t get you, then Father Time will.” Now Dr. Ehrlich hastens to assure us that in spite of the fact that some of the white people who are talking up population control do mean population control of blacks, or the poor, or the Indians, like most racist plots this one is incompetent. …Do we, as black people, have legitimate cause for alarm? Has genocide ever been tried before? Yes it has. Has the United States government demonstrated its commitment to the defense of the interests of Black people? It has not. Do we have legitimate cause for alarm? I believe we do.” ( SOURCE: Transcript, Commencement address delivered at Syracuse University by Julian Bond on June 6,1970)

Get a copy of the film- Maafa21. http://www.maafa21.com

Maafa21 : New film exposes Eugenics and Black Genocide from Abortion

And now, a stunning new movie lays it all out with incredible documentation.

The film is called Maafa 21 and it exposes a plan to create “racial purity” that began 150 years ago and is still being carried out right now.

It’s about the ties between the Nazis, the American eugenics movement and today’s “family planning” cartel.

It’s about elitism, secret agendas, treachery and corruption at the highest levels of political and corporate America.

Maafa 21 will show you things the media has been hiding and politicians don’t want you to know.

So if you’re ready to see the real agenda behind “choice,” fasten your seatbelts …

IT’S SHOCK AND AWE TIME!

Watch Maafa21 and get more on Black Genocide in 21st Century America: http://www.maafa21.com
(Short Clip:)

Richard Land Live discusses using DDT and Eugenics

Posted in Abortion, Ehrlich, Maafa21 with tags , , , , , , on April 26, 2010 by saynsumthn

Listen to Richard Land Live show 4/24/2010 here – at Approx 31:00 you can hear a caller mention the eugenics goals, and the possibilities of population control as described in Maafa21.


20100424-3.mp3

Watch the film – Maafa21 – Preview Below

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.”