Activist Post
Billions of dollars is being poured into an effort to reduce population growth all over the world, and most people do not even know that it is happening. These efforts are often promoted under such labels as "family planning", "abortion rights" and "public health programs", but the primary goal is always to get women to have less children.
This population control agenda has millions upon millions of supporters all over the planet and it is gaining even more adherents with each passing day. It is being taught in colleges, universities and schools all over the globe. It is being promoted by radical humanists who are completely and totally convinced that the core crisis that humanity is facing today is that there are way too many people living on this planet. They fully believe that overpopulation is the root cause of most of our economic, social, political and environmental problems. In fact, the truth is that many of them actually believe that they are literally in a "life or death" race to save the planet.
Many of the "true believers" are entirely convinced that if human population numbers are not greatly reduced from where they are now, the planet we are living on will be completely destroyed. That is why many of these radical humanists would absolutely love for you and I to die. From their perspective, the less people the better.
Many who write about the population control agenda make it sound as if there is just a "tiny elite" that is promoting this philosophy. Sadly, that is simply not accurate. The truth is that this twisted agenda is being taught at the majority of the colleges and universities in the United States. It is being promoted in our television shows and in our movies. It is even being taught to elementary school children.
As a result, more Americans than ever are embracing this philosophy. You would be surprised how many people actually believe that our growing population will soon cause major shortages of food, water, oil and other important resources.
For example, the following is an excerpt from one comment that was left on one of my previous articles about population control....
It is undeniable, the earth is being completely destroyed and while the planet could theoretically sustain probably between 13 to 16 billion people, this would require 2 developments to occur:
1. There would have to be a global resource-rational production & distribution scheme which would ensure that each person could have enough air, water & food, in an environment where, due to the resulting scarcity on clean resources, excess & hoarding would be directly correlated with human death.
2. There would have to be a dramatic reduction in the quality of life for a dramatically higher percentage of the world’s population than currently experience miserable lives.Does that figure sound familiar?
Rather than accept these awful outcomes of unfettered industrialization, let us instead embark on a course to drastically limit the global population to around 500 million.
It should. That is the exact target number for the global human population that we find on the Georgia Guidestones.
But when the population of the earth was back at 500 million did we still have poverty, war, famines and other similar problems?
Of course we did.Reducing the population of the planet by more than 90 percent would not wipe out any of our problems.
But this sick agenda is being endlessly promoted in the mainstream media. For example, during a recent radio interview HBO personality Bill Maher stated that he is "consistently pro-death" and that he wants society to find ways to get more people to die off....
I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.You can hear Maher making these comments right here.
If you think that is sick, just check out this next example.
Two "scientists" recently published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics in which they called for the legalization of the murder of newborn babies. Instead of "murder", they want it to be called "after-birth abortion" ....
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.
Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.Isn't that disturbing?
Actually, you would probably be surprised at how many people there are that will read this article and find nothing wrong with the idea of "after-birth abortion".
Respect for life is rapidly declining in our society, and a big reason for that is because the population control agenda is being pushed at our colleges and universities.
Just check out this quote from an actual classroom lecture by MIT professor Penny Chisholm....
The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.There is something deeply insidious about specifically targeting the "developing countries" for population control. Do you think that Professor Chisholm really understands the full implications of what she is saying?
This sick population control agenda is also being heavily promoted in Europe.
A recent article by Jurriaan Maessen discussed a document entitled "Scenarios for a One Planet Economy in Europe" that was produced by a EU-funded think think called the "One Planet Economy Network". One of the goals of the One Planet Economy Network is to "help transform Europe to a One Planet Economy by 2050."
"Scenarios for a One Planet Economy in Europe" examines four different scenarios that could play out as Europe moves toward a "green" future. The following is a quote from a section of the report that discusses a scenario entitled "Breaking Point"....
The EU must take strong measures to limit population growth both in Europe, but more importantly in the rest of the world in the face of increasing demand at a time when technological innovation is stagnant and global shortages (e.g. of fossil fuels and agricultural land) are pushing up prices. In some European countries, life expectancy stagnates; in others it falls.Once again, we see an example of where population growth for "the rest of the world" is considered to be absolutely crucial. And that tends to be the attitude of many of these radical humanists. It is always "someone else" that is the biggest part of the problem.
Farther down in the report, it is suggested that financial coercion could be used to motivate families to have less children....
Beginning in 2012, one of the measures taken to control population growth was to phase-out child benefits for multi-children families. By 2020, benefits were only provided for up to a maximum of 2 children. As the economy in general has become more labour intensive, immigration policies were relaxed in order to attract low skilled labour, especially for the agriculture sector. This further adds to social tension in the EU. Bilateral trade deals require trading partners to implement population control measures.But population control measures are not just something that we will see in the future. The truth is that UN agencies and non-governmental entities are already implementing population control measures all over the globe. They are often called "family planning programs" or "free sterilization drives", but the goal is always to get women to have less children.
And in many of the wealthier countries we are also seeing fertility levels steadily drop.
Thanks to all of the garbage in our food, air and water it is getting harder and harder to get pregnant.
A recent article by Anthony Gucciardi included the text of an email from a biotech scientist who admitted that he was aware that his work was contributing to reduced fertility. What you are about to read is absolutely stunning....
*******************
In the email, the biotech scientist known as ‘Ed’ explains how he thinks it’s absolutely ‘awesome’ that GMOs are contributing to infertility, as he believes the world is overpopulated. He also attacks me personally for my work on warning the public over the dangers of GMOs (particularly the latest news over the research linking GMOs to organ failure and tumor development). As of right now we have not released the full name of ‘Ed’ nor his organization, but we may in the future after considering the legal concerns.
Here is the Full Email:
I am no traitor against humanity. If this **** causes infertility… Awesome!!
The world is over-populated, and people need to stop having children. This is one of earth’s largest problems
If the earth wasn’t overpopulated, things like growth hormones wouldn’t EXIST.
The reason they do, is that the earth cannot produce enough food on its own to feed us all.
This is why GMO is actually saving the planet.
So **** you and your ********. I am doing humanity a ******* FAVOR!!!
Sincerely,
A REAL ‘traitor to humanity'
– EdYou can also view the screenshot for yourself here.
**********
Many of those promoting genetically-modified foods for the public actually privately insist on organic foods for their own families.
They know what they are doing, but they truly believe that it is good for the planet.
For these radical humanists, the ends often justify the means. Many of them are entirely convinced that humanity is only going to have a bright future if the global population is reduced dramatically. So they are willing to take extraordinary measures for "the greater good".
The mindset of some of these radicals is absolutely frightening. For example, Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, once said that reducing the global population to 100 million is one of his three primary goals....
My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s [sic]full complement of species, returning throughout the world.This kind of philosophy rises to the surface in some of our most trusted publications quite often as well.
For example, Time Magazine once ran an article entitled "How To Die" that explained why it is a good thing to kill off the elderly.
Newsweek actually once ran an article entitled "The Case For Killing Granny".
Sadly, there was not a massive national uproar over either of those articles. Yeah, a few people were upset, but most Americans did not get seem too disturbed.
The truth is that the American public is starting to buy into the propaganda that getting married and having children is not such a great thing.
Today, an all-time low 44.2% of all Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 are married, and fertility rates in the U.S. are steadily dropping.
Back in 2008, the average number of children per woman in the U.S. was 2.1.By 2011, that number had fallen to 1.9.
So the numbers are definitely going in the direction that population control advocates want. This twisted philosophy is even represented in the White House. Barack Obama's primary science advisor, John P. Holdren, once co-authored a book in which he advocated the mass sterilization of American women. The following is just one of the incredibly disturbing quotes from Holdren's book....
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.And this population control agenda was even reflected in the new health care law. It is not an accident that sterilization won't cost women a single penny under Obamacare.
They want U.S. women to choose sterilization. They want to make it as easy for them as possible. The more women that get sterilized, the less children that will be running around.
There is so much more that could be written about the population control agenda of these radical humanists.
The following are 10 of my previous articles about this issue....
#1 "They Love Death"
#2 "From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite"
#3 "Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control"
#4 "The Green Agenda Is About Getting Rid Of As Many Humans As Possible"
#5 "Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations"
#6 "Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch"
#7 "One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth"
#8 "Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy"
#9 "New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change"
#10 "To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control"
So what do you think about all of this?
Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below....
This article first appeared here at The Truth. Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
22 comments:
Yeah, science can be pretty disturbing. But if you think about it, our morality is based on a continual escallation of human life and a stubborn valuing of it. It can be argued that we are where we are today - economically-rooted resource-conflicts - for the very reason of hitting the ceiling on the Earth's capacity to sustain us.
>Respect for life is rapidly declining in our society, and a big reason for that is because the population control agenda
It's more than that. Read the Amanda Todd story
>They want U.S. women to choose sterilization.
There's no insanity in bringing less people into a world where the vast majority of us struggle for a "fair share" of resources.
>The mindset of some of these radicals is absolutely frightening.
I am more depressed over how slow society is to come to terms with the reality here. I really see a huge potential or humanity, but I'm open-minded enough to realize we can't easily change the horrific practices we *need* today, just to feed ourselves. technology isn't going to save us from stupidity, indeed...
I think adopting GMO crops everywhere is a bad idea- but put yourself in the shoes of one of these guys with these ideas. What else can you do to stop the beast which is humanity?
From what I gather, a large part of this article and the demonizing of government and the elites, is the inability to put everything into perspective.. these are real actual issues, that are happening right now. They are scientific reality. "Good morality" can't save humanity, because as I said, it's fundamentally unrealistic of the nature of our planet. How much do we actually *know* about such global planetary issues?
A quote from China- "the cheapest thing is life itself"
Ultimately if someone is to think about the future of humanity, yeah, they need to be able to deal with these kinds of issues, with a sound mind, however disturbing they may be. The reality is that we have overshot our planet's capacity to sustain life. "We only have one planet" ..
So- an interesting question;- is the humane thing to kill us all slowly rather than most of us?
We have a lot to learn about the value of a human life, and issues like actual global equality. Indeed we do. But again; the scientific reality is that, the more we continue to have this problem of overpopulation, the more we have these things like genetically modified crops, and diseased food-animals, and a huge disconnect from reality in Western society. The problems aren't going to fix themselves by us being nicer about it. That is the uncomfortable truth. There is no infinite safety in conformity in society, or in religion, or indeed in humanitarianism.
The one thing that is sure: if we have a lot of clarity and truth-talking from "these people" and from governments, showing the reasoning for these mindsets, then there is surely nothing to criticize, and we can stop being so dramatic and actually come to a solution. Now how about that.
If reducing the world's population is the goal of those mysterious elitists who want to rule the world, what's the plan to deal with countries like Russia who don't play the game; who don't permit GMO food, don't force vaccines on people, don't have chemtrails, have socialized medical care for everyone, don't have death panels, actively encourage population growth by giving cash incentives for families having children, allow people to drink fresh milk and encourage people to have their own organic gardens, etc.?
In a world where the desired level of 500 million is stated, as written on the Georgia Guidestones, how does Russia's 140+ million and growing population fit in here? Are they going to be allowed to dominate the world population courtesy of the US government?
Maybe this is why Mr. Romney considers Russia to be the number 1 threat to the US.
A single seed can produce a fruit tree with hundreds of frui. Nature comes from a place of abundance, not lack. There is enough money and food and resources to satisfy everyone on the planet, but by forcing shortages and creating the illusion of lack, larger profits can be obtained.
How can we even begin to think that we may not be able to feed a global population? Even a small garden plot can feed a lot of people.
As a species we occupy a very small percentage of the planet's surface area.
As someone recently pointed out...if you eliminate global poverty and raise the standard of living, you automatically reduce the average size of families. It is the poorest of families that seem to have the most children.
The next step is slavery. Half of those who are left will be slaves to produce the food and goods for the rest. It will be utopia for 250 million people.Is this what we want?
It is the fear of the poor multitude overrunning the resources which seems to be promulgating these radical ideas. It is always
interesting how much easier it is to blame the
woman than the men who rape and pillage as an
excuse to exercise dominence. It is far easier to control population through vasectimies but it is the men who are in fear of their bollocks and a slippage of their power which is pushing the radical humanists agenda.
It would be easier - and safer - to just bump off the few who want to kill off so many of us. Hitler said, "I know I talk of the German people but all I really care about is the top ten thousand." That sounds about right for countries the size of Germany and the UK, and in the US it won't be more than thirty thousand (about one per cent of the one per cent.)
Their plans seem to be suggesting another war of annihalation, but it could mean their own annihalation if they don't stop taking the piss. Mick McNulty. England.
I say to these people, "You first!" They must be prosecuted and punished for their capital crimes against humanity.
I always want to ask these pro death people like Mr Maher and Peter Singer if they would want to volunteer to go first and show us a good example.
It is tacitly assumed that they want everyone but themselves to die...typical life boat thinking.
Someone who could be in the top percent of the 1% called "useless eaters" a major part of the world population: 1% VIPs like Henry K. and Ted T. just to name those two famous political and media figures.
If I read their minds right, they'd love to be part of a new world composed essentially of a minimum population of privileged. I could see them being ultimately forced to battle for their dream, decimating the annoying billions, destroying all modern infrastructures in the process, and having to use their arms and feet for a change, labouring at their agricultural fields and orchards, gathering wood, trying to light fires for cooking and heating, fetching water daily for themselves and their fields in times of droughts, etc.
Of course, most of them would not be physically able to do those daily, manual, fastidious but essential "slave" chores. So they would have to actually keep useless eaters to do all tiring and especially skilled labour for them, ergo the predictable problem of being overpopulated again, not by the too many, but by the jealous, dreaming, and possibly greedy non-privileged.
That being said, those NWO "special" people might go too far in their desire to destroy the rest of us, and might be forced to (stupidly) use weaponry that will contaminate most if not all of the earth surface, causing their own destruction as well, even if they could live in their underground nuclear shelters. Deadly nuclear contamination could last hundred of thousands of years... On the other hand if they instead decided to leave earth and go start a new life on another planet, GOOD RIDDIN AND GOOD LUCK! We'll try to manage here, on earth, with a NRO, a New Resource Order... In times of real needs humankind could show wisdom, as long as it's given the opportunity to choose the lesser evil.
I'm with Anon 11:13
Thieves and murderers are the ones behind this agenda and those who support it know that the elite will never give up what they have stolen so in order to have a piece of the crumbling pie, you must choose their side. This pie is getting more rancid by the hour and if they think they can pull this off it's just a wasted effort. only spiritless mindless people will believe this agenda has a chance of becoming a reality. We are a lot more than that and I'm not concerned with their action because it will soon be abolished and forgotten by forces they cannot possibly be tuned into in their state of stagnation.
The whole premise of Malthusianism is based on bad math. Humans do not reproduce exponentially and there has never been a mathematical model to prove that. It is difficult enough for a country to have an authentic census. Humans are not bacteria.
I've read some about population control, and I have a solution that should make everyone happy, both those who desire control, and those who aren't in favor of control.
Those who are worried about the population growth should be the first to leave the earth. Then if that isn't enough, those left over who are worried about the population should leave.
Eventually enough will have left that the remainder obviously think earth is fine with the population it has and people can quit leaving it. Those who were worried have lived and died by their principles, and the rest of us will have lived and died by ours. Everyone should be quite content.
For those that advocate the population control agenda, how about you do the planet and mankind a favor, kill yourself as an example of how others should do so. Its really easy to say some peasant in a 3rd wold country should die but when it comes to yourself, your life is too precious right? GTFOH hypocrites! Lead by example and do us all a favor!
@Anon 12:11
"Those who are worried about the population growth should be the first to leave the earth. Then if that isn't enough, those left over who are worried about the population should leave."
This has never been about good vs. evil; it's scientific reality. The problem with doing that- taking the people who understand the logic of killing themselves to let other people live in global peace- is that there's far too few. I would be happy to die for a better world if it can guarantee world peace; an equal standard of living and labor equality for all. But people aren't really asking for that. Humanity isn't really asking for that. This argument of "how about you do the planet and mankind a favor, kill yourself" is an emotional one borne of the fear of the elite. Do you really think these guys would plot to kill a large number of people on the planet if they could use them as slaves instead?
Problem #2 with that quickly-offered solution: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
And I guess no discussion here is going to get past individual emotional reasoning.
Problem #3; even if we can dramatically reduce the world population in such a way, we have already affected the Earth's capacity to sustain human life. This has nothing to do with the land mass we occupy, and everything to do with the subtle, indirect effects we have long been applying to the natural world. Biodiversity; removing nutrient transportation from waters by building dams; emptying our wastes into the environment; breeding animals for food in very cramped and uncomfortable conditions. You get issues like inland-farmed fish overrun with parasites like water fleas, and there's nothing anyone can do because the demand for producing that food is only going up, and has only ever been going up.
And today, people think companies like Monsanto don't really have a reason to be trying to make the water more clean so that more water can be circulated back into our sanitary systems (coming world water shortages) and creating crops that are forevermore separated from the ecosystem of tiny insects in the soil-- this is an increasing reality of food production demands, particularly if we are to improve the living conditions of the poorest in the world.
It is a hard fact that no one school of study is onto all of these issues of the world sphere at large. It is a hard fact that politics; that education; that commerce-- all face their own pressures from all directions because as a society we are obsessed with escallating our quality of life in food, in services, in technology and in entertainment. We are not focused on keeping the planet healthy, because for the most part those workings are above and beyond our best scientific understanding (the Earth as a system- very, very complex) and abilities to diagnose and forecast; but not only that- we simply do not care about all this shit on a personal, individual level. We *do not* care. Because it is far beyond our comprehension and understanding to.
Reality check- our civilization is spiralling out of control. Democracy is not intelligence. Morality is not going to save us. There is, in our world society, no recognized point of counsel for issues on this level. We do not trust each other, let alone organizational structures of control and governance. We don't trust, and we don't care.
Now that the elites have taken virtually all the precious metals and natural resources from the planet using our labor, they want us to disappear. Not only have they mined the world's natural resources and then sold them to us, they then blame us for consuming them. Now they claim we are spoiling the planet when it was already polluted and poisoned by the actions of the elite.
We're not buying this population control plan because it's a lie. This planet will easily support the current population if the elite were forced to return the capital and resources that belongs to us. Of course that's not going to happen voluntarily, we're going to have to take it back ourselves. This shouldn't pose much of a problem since we are the huge majority. All we have to do is agree to unite as a global collective redistribution force and turn the tables on them. Interestingly, this is already occurring and they know it, which is why they are amping up the message.
"So what do you think about all of this?"
I very much want to see population managed and controlled. Reducing world population is not only necessary and overdue, but a damned good idea.
It is NOT a lie as you allege. Resource decline is happening all over the world, especially in the oceans. Ongoing environmental destruction and toxic dumping continues to cause widespread harm to all forms of life, including humans.
The solution is obvious: we must start to manage ourselves and our numbers.
You harp on about 'traitors' but reject common sense, science, research and evidence. Who is the real 'traitor' here?
Eventually the Sun will burn every last inch of this rock; humans, cute little bunnies, majestic forests and wild horses alike.
All those pretty little flowers, butterflies, pandas and ponies that you depopulation hypocrites hold so dear are just as doomed as we "parasite humans."
To hell with your attitudes - our destiny as a species does not end on this planet!
Unfortunately, people like to truck. Some people are really surprised at what happens after they truck. Most people aren't surprised at all and keep on trucking anyway. A lot of people truck on purpose. A lot more people truck on purpose but don't really know what they're doing.
The world is controlled by those who believe that less people on the earth would be best. What is scary, is that they develop technologies to kill a certain number of the population.
http://criticalthinkblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/
It is amazing to me that the human mind is capable of a firm belief that flies in the face of logic.
Perpetual growth of humanity on a finite planet is impossible, isn't it?
If you are not worried, you are not paying attention.
Yet someone commented that we eliminate the people who are worried (!!), and that would solve the problem! This shows the lengths to which some people will go to defend their attachment to a fantasy.
"Perpetual growth of humanity on a finite planet is impossible, isn't it?"
Yes, and the most likely mechanism for that very thing NOT happening is that the birth-rates will drop off. In order to give birth, a mother needs to be some distance from starvation. Therefore if there's insufficient food for a mother to comfortably survive no baby will be born.
The members of the population who for whatever reason or mechanism, refuse to die, or be killed, will end up inheriting the control of the earth's destiny, at least in part proportional to the toal remaining population.
If a totalitarian country like North Korea, which could wholesale-murder 5/6ths of its population and get away with it tomorrow, does not or cannot do so effectively, and has its population continually growing, along with a substantial contingent of hungry people, what hope do the Malthusian elites outside of such countries have in succeeding with their murderous agendas?
Another useful factoid for debunking Malthusians, if you put every last human being on earth in their own 10x10 foot square, Earth's population as a 1 layer grid would not even fill up the small square bit at the upper-left corner of Texas. That's effectively every man, woman, and child on earth "owning" a space around themselves near the size of most people's living rooms, or a large bedroom. Even the most obese would be ~8 feet away from their nearest neighbor, even if they were equally obese!
And if you used a cube, of 10 foot cubic spaces, you could contain the Earth's entire population in a cube only 4 miles on a side with a large number of cells left over!
And the Malthusians are trying to tell you that this volume of humanity has "overshot" the sustaining capability of the entire rest of the planet's atmosphere, land-mass, and oceans?
In other words, they think ~30,000 square miles of people requires more than 58,000,000 (58 million) square miles of land, plus 7/3 times as much ocean surface (and depth) plus the entire atmospheric volume, and all the gigawatts of insolation coming to earth from the sun, to sustain it?
So, as much as I love Pink Floyd's "Point me at the Sky", the lyrics regarding overpopulation didn't turn out to be accurate at all.
"And if you survive 'till two thousand and five, I hope you're exceedingly thin, for if you are stout you shall have to breathe out, so everyone else can breathe in..."
At least one of us here appears to be a staunchly dues-paying member of the "hubris-guilt" school of philosophy. Hubris-guilt together is a powerful perpetual meme. It covers everything that can be observed a lot better than most religions, and it also appeals at a very visceral level to many human brains. Global warming alarmists fit fairly neatly into this category, but it's not limited to them.
To paraphrase their beliefs, they think that mankind has already ruined the earth. This is a mix of hubris and guilt (and perhaps a little ignorance of scale). They also think that with enough radical action (controlling everything about YOUR life), some of that can be repaired. That's mainly hubris.
They also like the phrase "spiralling out of control" as if that's something brand new, say in the last 100 years or so. They get angry when you ask when in history it wasn't in that state.
Post a Comment